Site Audit ($0.05)

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions cost, scoring, and output (verdict, fixes) but lacks details on error handling or behavior with invalid URLs.

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 convey purpose, output, and cost efficiently. No redundant information.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core functionality, scoring, and cost. Minor gap: output format details.

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?

Only one parameter 'url' with schema description. Tool description adds context ('Is this website legit?') but doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond schema. Baseline 3 for 100% coverage.

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 audits a website for trustworthiness, SEO, and contactability, providing a score and verdict. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'trust_check' by specifying the full audit scope.

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 phrase 'Due diligence in one call' implies when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context makes it clear this is for comprehensive website evaluation.

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