technical_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it checks robots.txt, sitemap, and headers, but does not mention rate limits, destructiveness, or side effects. It is implied to be read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the scope. It lists what is checked, though it could briefly mention the output format, but that is handled by the output schema.

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 covers the single parameter 'url' with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds context about what the URL is used for (to check technical SEO aspects), but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states it 'checks technical SEO aspects' and lists specific items (robots.txt, sitemap.xml, security headers). The verb 'checks' and resource 'technical SEO aspects' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like check_schema_markup or check_broken_links by focusing on infrastructure checks.

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 useful context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like onpage_audit or check_schema_markup. Usage is implied from the purpose, but no exclusions or scenarios are provided.

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