gold_crawl_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral disclosure: BFS crawl strategy, 50-page cap, 1.2s throttle, the paid-only PRO $29 access constraint, and the caveat that CWV signals are heuristic. It omits output format details but discloses the operational traits an agent needs to set expectations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the throttle/pricing notes are useful, but the 'Steal: open-seo 12992 onpage + crawlseo 551 crawler+CWV' sentence is internal provenance noise that an agent cannot act on. The remaining text is appropriately dense.

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?

Covers invocation essentials: URL input, enabled checks, crawl cap, throttle, and cost. Gaps: no output format guidance (and no output schema exists to compensate) and no usage routing versus siblings. For a modeately complex 4-param tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description mirrors the schema (50-page cap, broken_links, CWV signals) without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Crawl audit') with detailed scope: BFS up to 50 pages, on-page checks (title/meta/h1/canonical/robots/viewport/alt), broken links, and CWV heuristic signals. The level of specificity fully distinguishes it from the keyword/GSC-focused sibling tools (gold_keyword_expand, gold_gsc_insights, etc.).

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives, but the rich scope detail implies the use case: on-page/crawl auditing versus the keyword and GSC siblings. The 'Steal:' line references source tools (open-seo, crawlseo) but does nothing to route an agent's selection.

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