audit_page

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior, and it does: it lists exactly what will be inspected and that each element receives a green/yellow/red score. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or require authentication, but the audit framing and scoring behavior are meaningfully disclosed.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then enumerates the audit scope and scoring model. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description tells the agent what the result will look like: each audited element scored green/yellow/red. It covers a broad set of checks and the scoring behavior, which is sufficient for a single-URL audit tool, though it could elaborate on the exact response structure.

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 only parameter, 'url', is already fully described in the schema ('URL to audit'), and the description adds no extra detail about format, validation, or edge cases. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score 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 opens with 'Full on-page SEO audit' and enumerates a comprehensive set of audit areas (title, meta description, H1-H6, canonical, OG tags, Twitter cards, links, images, word count, robots meta). This clearly distinguishes it from the narrower sibling tools like check_headings or audit_images.

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 word 'Full' and the extensive checklist clearly position this as the comprehensive page-audit tool, giving the agent a strong sense of when to choose it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools.

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