Get Lighthouse SEO report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: missing devices are named explicitly, embedded screenshots and detailed tables are omitted and labeled, and returned data is untrusted content not instructions. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent handle the response safely.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential behavioral caveats in short sentences. Every sentence earns its place: what is included, what is omitted, that it doesn't run a new audit, and the untrusted-content warning. No redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and a clear description, everything an agent needs is present: what the tool returns, what it omits, how to identify the reportId, and the safety note about untrusted content. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently outlines the return contents.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single reportId parameter. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the reportId is the MCP reportId returned by the matching create tool, not a provider report ID, which is critical for correct invocation. This is a meaningful addition beyond the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves an owned Lighthouse/PSI summary with specific contents (category scores, audit findings, explanations, metrics, completion status) per device. It distinguishes itself from sibling create tools by explicitly noting it does not run a new audit, and the title 'Get Lighthouse SEO report' aligns with the get_onpage_report name.

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 implies when to use this tool: after creating a report via the matching create tool, since it retrieves an 'owned' report and references the reportId returned by the create tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the 'does not run a new audit' statement provide clear context. A slight gap is not explicitly saying 'use create_onpage_report to generate a new audit'.

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