audit_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the audit scope (29 checks, score, fixes) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. Given the nature (audit), it is reasonably transparent but could be more explicit.

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 sentences: first defines function and output, second gives usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: categories, score range, and output type (prioritized fixes). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it.

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% (one parameter 'url' fully described in schema). The description adds no additional semantic context for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states the tool performs a full AI-readiness (AEO) audit with 29 checks across specific categories, returns a 0-100 score and prioritized fixes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering multiple dimensions (crawler access, structured data, etc.) versus individual checks.

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 explicitly states when to use: when asked about visibility to AI chatbots or for overall AEO/AI-SEO health. It does not include when-not-to-use or compare directly with siblings, but the context is clear and actionable.

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