check_performance_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the check intention but does not disclose whether it runs a full audit, side effects, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a standalone description.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's function.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., boolean, pass/fail, detailed report), leaving agents uncertain about how to interpret results. This is a significant gap.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (url, budget object properties, device). The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 67% schema 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 verb 'check' and the resource 'website performance against budget thresholds'. It differentiates from siblings like get_performance_score or get_core_web_vitals by emphasizing budget comparison.

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 when budget thresholds are defined, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, which is a gap 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.