Get Security Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that it checks HTTPS/CSP and 'other security measures', which is useful but thin. It does not mention network behavior toward the target URL or response characteristics, though openWorldHint partially implies external access. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the action ('Perform security audit') and gives concrete examples of check types. The tail 'and other security measures' is slightly vague but functions as a pointer to the schema's enum without bloating the text.

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?

With an output schema present, full parameter documentation in the schema, and annotations covering the read-only/open-world safety profile, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The notable gap is the missing relationship to 'run_audit', which is the one sibling that could genuinely confuse tool selection.

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% — url, checks, and device are all documented in the input schema, so the description carries no required burden. The mention of 'HTTPS, CSP' marginally reinforces the enum values in the 'checks' parameter, but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('security audit') and concrete focus areas (HTTPS, CSP), which cleanly separates it from the nine accessibility/SEO/performance siblings. However, it does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling 'run_audit', whose scope is left undefined, so an agent cannot fully tell them apart.

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?

Usage is implied by the security focus and the 'checking HTTPS, CSP' phrasing, which suggests this is the tool for security-related audits. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over 'run_audit' or when not to use it, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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