Run a full audit

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) are present, and the description adds important behavioral points: it is a one-time audit, requires an active subscription, and returns a scored summary plus a link. No contradiction with annotations. However, it does not detail how long the audit takes or if it has rate limits.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third describes output and requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (multi-category audit), the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a requirement (subscription). The schema is simple and fully described. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by describing the return type (scored summary, link). Missing details about pagination or rate limits are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'domain' with a clear description). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the tool runs a full one-time audit covering AI visibility, SEO, security headers, broken links, and performance. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('audit of a website'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ai_visibility (which only provides the AI visibility number).

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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool: when someone asks to 'audit,' 'scan,' 'check,' or 'review' a website's health or SEO, or wants a complete report rather than just the AI-visibility number. It could further clarify when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_ai_visibility for a single metric, but the guidance is clear enough.

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