audit_site

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: real HTTP requests, deterministic health score, free tier without key. It details what's checked and the return format, providing transparency about the tool's operation and side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear summary first, then details. It is detailed but not overly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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's complexity (multiple checks, health score, PRO features), the description covers essential aspects: real HTTP requests, deterministic output, free tier, and outputs. It mentions PRO geo sub-score but doesn't detail PRO fully. With an output schema present, completeness is adequate.

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 minimal extra context beyond schema (e.g., explaining depth values in prose). It does not add significant parameter-level meaning that the schema lacks.

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 technical SEO audit with real HTTP requests, listing specific checks (SSL, security headers, redirects, etc.) and outputs like health score, problems list. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_diff or check_sitemap by being the comprehensive audit tool.

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 (to get factual data the model can't guess) and mentions free tier. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison with alternatives like check_sitemap or validate_robots, which slightly reduces clarity for an agent deciding between tools.

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