AI readability audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the specific behavioral criteria that will be checked, which is genuinely useful context. It doesn't describe return format or scoring methodology, but with strong annotations the burden is lower.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the five key criteria. No filler or redundancy. It could arguably be slightly more compact, but it earns each clause by enumerating the audit dimensions.

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 single-parameter read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be assessed. The five enumerated criteria give the agent a good sense of expected outputs. It doesn't explain scoring/return format, but the criteria list is reasonably complete for guiding invocation.

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% with a single parameter (url) fully described as 'Public webpage URL'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with only one parameter at full schema coverage, there is nothing meaningful to add. The baseline of 3 applies exactly here.

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 it checks a page's readability/AI-readiness across five concrete dimensions (focused answer, definition, heading structure, readable sections, marketing restraint). The verb 'check' plus the list of criteria makes the purpose clear. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but it's distinguishable from the other many 'aeo_' audit tools by its specific readability focus.

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 implies usage for evaluating whether a page is AI/readability-friendly, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus the many sibling audit tools (aeo_audit_page, aeo_intent_coverage, aeo_entity_coverage, etc.). It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the focused criteria provide implicit context.

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