generate_audit_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the report is saved locally but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file overwrite, temporary files) or resource implications (e.g., CapSolver costs). Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond what's in the schema.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with purpose and data sources. No redundant information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are defined. Description covers the key functionality but could elaborate on file naming, location, and whether the report is reusable. Still reasonably complete for a report generation 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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Tool description adds context about combining data types but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it generates a full SEO audit report in Markdown, combining On-Page, Technical, and Ahrefs data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects (e.g., onpage_audit, technical_health_check).

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?

Description implies use for a comprehensive audit but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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