pagespeed_audit

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level outcome. It does not mention that the tool likely fetches the URL, performs a network-based audit, may be slow or rate-limited, or whether any state changes or credentials are involved. The behavior is hinted at but not meaningfully disclosed beyond the tool name.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It loses one point only because it omits essential parameter and usage context that could have been included without much extra length.

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 three parameters, none of which are described in the schema or the tool description, and there are no annotations to fill the gap. Although an output schema exists, an agent cannot invariantly understand the role of 'format' and 'strategy' or how to tailor the audit. This is incomplete for a tool with multiple meaningful options.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the URL target and says nothing about 'format' or 'strategy'. An agent reading the description cannot know what formats are available, what strategy means, or how those defaults affect results. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Audit' and names the resource ('a URL's performance') plus the concrete outputs ('Core Web Vitals and optimization tips'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the marketing/research siblings, none of which perform technical URL performance auditing.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no indicated prerequisites, and no exclusions. The single sentence merely implies that one should use it when a URL performance audit is needed, which is not enough to help an agent weigh options among the many sibling tools.

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