audit_store

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds genuinely new operational context: Core Web Vitals come from an external PageSpeed Insights API, it may be unavailable ('when it answers'), and the call can take ~40 seconds. That latency and partial-result warning is exactly the kind of detail an agent can't get from annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is audited, followed by the latency/API caveat. Nothing redundant and every clause carries information.

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?

With one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, cost, and data-source uncertainty. It stops short of describing what the result contains (scored findings, issue list), leaving the return shape to inference.

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% and the single url parameter is fully documented with an example, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only 'one store page' scope, which is marginal beyond the schema's 'public page URL' description.

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?

A specific verb (audit) plus a scoped resource (one store page) and an enumerated list of what gets checked: SEO basics, structured data, images, broken links, trust signals, speed. It does not explicitly state how it differs from the sibling checks (check_ai_shopping_readiness, check_merchant_center, check_shopify_checkout), though the naming plus scope makes differentiation reasonably inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one store page' and the per-dimension scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to which sibling to pick for adjacent checks. The 40-second caveat helps an agent plan but isn't selection guidance.

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