get_lcp_opportunities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' opportunities, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety, mention required permissions, error handling, or rate limits. The agent lacks sufficient information to understand 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is so brief that it omits useful context. Adequate conciseness but at the expense of completeness.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about the return format, error cases, or how to interpret results. Schema descriptions cover parameters, but the overall context for agent decision-making is insufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves LCP optimization opportunities, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'LCP optimization opportunities'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_core_web_vitals which provide metrics rather than specific opportunities.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_core_web_vitals or run_audit, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts where it should be avoided.

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