onpage_audit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only discloses that no API key is required. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, destructive potential, or other behavioral traits, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of the tool's impact.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its input. It is complete enough for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could hint at optional parameters or results.

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 schema already fully describes the url parameter. The description adds an example (e.g., 'https://example.com/blog/post-1') but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 performs a detailed on-page SEO audit of a specific URL, listing specific checks (meta tags, heading structure, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower aspects like content density or schema markup.

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 mentions it does not require an API key, which is helpful, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_content_density or check_schema_markup. Usage context is implied but not differentiated.

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