seo_audit_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Audit' implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not disclose whether the tool returns a report, mutates anything, performs network calls, or requires the api_key beyond authentication. The behavioral profile is too thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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, compact sentence that places the core action first. It contains no filler, though it sacrifices specificity for brevity, which slightly limits its helpfulness.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what an agent can expect after calling it—such as a list of SEO issues, scores, or recommendations. It does not explain the audit scope, return shape, or behavioral side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent selecting 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond restating that HTML content is audited; it does not clarify expected HTML format, size limits, or how the api_key is used. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the verb 'Audit' with a clear resource ('HTML structure and content') and a domain ('SEO performance factors'). It is somewhat broad—'performance factors' is not enumerated—but it is distinct enough from siblings like seo_audit_meta, which focuses on metadata specifically.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings seo_audit_meta or seo_generate_fixes. An agent must infer that this tool is for HTML structure/content analysis rather than meta tags or generating fixes, but the description never makes that routing explicit.

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