analyze_page_speed

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially discloses behavior by noting the GOOGLE_PSI_API_KEY requirement, which implies external API dependency. However, it omits other traits like rate limits, latency, potential errors, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a critical prerequisite without excess. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema available), the description covers the essential purpose and a key dependency. It does not mention the return format (covered by schema) but could briefly note that it measures performance metrics. Still, it's adequate for a straightforward 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters (url, strategy) with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not elevating it.

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's purpose: 'Analyzes site speed using Google PageSpeed Insights.' It specifies a concrete verb ('Analyzes') and a distinct resource ('site speed'), differentiating it from sibling tools like check_broken_links_on_page or keyword_ideas.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only mentions a prerequisite (API key), but no comparisons or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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