audit_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool audits up to N pages, aggregates issues, requires only a sitemap URL, and does not need Google credentials. It does not mention potential side effects or rate limiting, but 'audit' implies a read-only operation and the key behavioral constraints are clearly stated.

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 compact sentences deliver the core purpose, the input requirement, and the authentication context without any filler. Key constraints are front-loaded, and the sentence structure makes the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 3-parameter schema, high schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It explains the input type, scope, aggregation behavior, and auth requirement; the remaining details, such as concurrency defaults, are already present in the structured 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by linking 'up to N pages' to maxPages and confirming sitemapUrl is the input, but it does not explain concurrency or add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and names the exact resource ('on-page SEO of up to N pages from a sitemap'), then clarifies the output ('roll up the most common issues'). It also distinguishes itself from Search Console-based tools by explicitly stating it takes a sitemap URL and needs no Google credentials.

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 gives clear usage context: use it when you have a public sitemap and want a site-wide rollup of common on-page SEO issues. It implies an alternative path ('rather than a Search Console property') but does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state when not to use it.

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