audit_page_onpage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions fetching and parsing, but omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., page not found), rate limits, or permission requirements. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence clearly conveys the action, inputs, and output. No wasted words; front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch'. Appropriate for a simple tool.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and only two parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. For a tool that suggests edits, it could mention that suggestions are action-oriented or that the tool is read-only.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Both parameters (page_url, target_query) are self-explanatory from the description, but no extra semantic detail is provided.

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 fetches a page, parses title/meta/headings/body, and returns concrete edit suggestions for a target query. It distinguishes from siblings like get_page_performance (performance metrics) and analyze_content_decay (content decay) by focusing on on-page SEO suggestions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_content_decay, get_page_performance). The description implies usage for optimizing a page for a query, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparative context.

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