Analyze a website with OptiQra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool crawls the entire site and may take a considerable amount of time, which is a significant behavioral trait. It also explains that the output is a report with per-category scores and issue details, providing good transparency without contradicting any 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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the main action, lists the audit categories efficiently, states the return value, and ends with a practical warning about time. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers the tool's behavior, the audit scope, the return report format, and a performance caveat. It could optionally mention prerequisites like site ownership or robots.txt, but the core context is sufficiently provided.

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 has 100% coverage, with the 'url' parameter already described as 'The URL of the website to analyze, e.g. https://example.com'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explains the tool's purpose: it crawls a website and runs a comprehensive audit covering many specific categories (SEO, performance, accessibility, etc.). The verb 'crawls' plus the resource 'website' makes the action explicit, and the detailed list of audit areas distinguishes it from the vague sibling tool names.

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 gives context that the tool crawls the whole site and can take a while, implying it should be used when a full audit is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (test, fix, insights) or any exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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