audit_eeat_entity_graph

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It names the actions but not whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates data, what the 'links publisher' action actually does, or what output an agent can expect. This ambiguity is significant given 'links' could imply a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler and starts with the primary audit verb. It packs several actions together, but each clause earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, this one-liner is too thin. It omits how optional inputs relate to each other, what the output or result is, and whether the tool has side effects, leaving an agent to guess important invocation details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description only loosely maps to rawJsonLd and sameAsUrls via 'raw JSON-LD' and 'sameAs authorities'. Four parameters (authorName, authorTitle, canonicalPageUrl, organizationName) receive no meaningful explanation, and the role of 'publisher' in the linking step is unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Audits Schema.org JSON-LD'), a clear resource, and adds two related behaviors (validate sameAs, link publisher). It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_heading_intent and lint_design_anti_patterns, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is inferable from the task verbs: audit JSON-LD and validate authority profiles. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.