PageSpeed Insights: test della pagina

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the 10-30 second latency, the fact that real-world CrUX field data is included only 'se disponibili', and the shape of the result set. It does not mention rate limits or failure behavior, but it exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: what it does, what it returns, and the time cost are all front-loaded. No filler, though it is a long single sentence rather than being broken into scannable clauses.

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 no output schema, the description does a fair job summarizing return values (scores, lab metrics, ordered opportunities, SEO checks, CrUX). However, it leaves the strategy/categories inputs unexplained and gives no guidance on interpretation, so it is only adequate for a 3-parameter analysis tool.

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 only 33% (only 'url' is documented). The description says nothing about the 'strategy' parameter (mobile/desktop) or the 'categories' array, both of which have enums/defaults that the description ignores. It therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('Test Lighthouse di una pagina tramite PageSpeed Insights') and enumerates the output contents (scores, lab metrics, opportunities, failed SEO checks, CrUX data). It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from related siblings such as crux_query or geo_page_metrics.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over crux_query, geo_page_metrics, or other siblings, nor any stated prerequisites. The only usage-relevant hint is the '10-30 secondi' runtime, which helps the agent budget time but does not route it between alternatives.

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