get_site_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It adds the critical cost notice 'Uses audit credits', which informs the agent of resource consumption. However, it does not mention read-only status, rate limits, or execution characteristics like synchronous vs. asynchronous behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 two short sentences that front-load the purpose and outputs, then state the credit usage. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, return categories, and credit consumption. It could optionally mention whether results are historical or cached, but as-is it provides a solid context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for the single 'url' field. The description reinforces that the tool audits a URL but does not add new syntax or format details beyond 'Full URL to audit', so it provides minimal additional semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'technical SEO audit on a URL', clearly stating the tool's action and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_keyword_history or get_backlinks, which focus on different SEO data types.

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 when to use the tool—when a technical SEO audit is needed—and lists concrete outputs (performance, meta tags, headings, images, links) that clarify its domain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently clear among the sibling tools.

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