Analyze Page Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation that may access external URLs. The description adds the focus on optimization opportunities but does not disclose details like whether it fetches live pages, handles redirects, or has rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the resource types and purpose. No waste, though it could be slightly more specific about the output or usage context. Efficient and to the point.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is adequate for a resource analysis tool. It doesn't explain return values (covered by output schema) or edge cases, but for a read-only analysis tool with 4 parameters, it is reasonably complete. Could benefit from mentioning that it analyzes a single URL or that it's for optimization, but these are minor gaps.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the overall purpose but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('website resources') with a clear scope (images, JS, CSS, fonts) and purpose (optimization opportunities). It distinguishes from siblings like get_performance_score or get_seo_analysis by focusing on resource-level analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 usage for optimization analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_unused_javascript or get_lcp_opportunities. The sibling list suggests related tools, but no exclusions or conditions are provided. The context is clear enough for a general audit, but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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