pagespeed

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a network call, that the URL must be public, that it may be slow or rate-limited, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that invokes a remote API.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core action and output focus.

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 complexity (4 params, external API call, output schema present) and the many sibling tools that overlap (crux_field_data, seo_audit, audit_site), the description is too thin. It lacks guidance on when to use it, what field vs. lab distinction means, and any operational caveats.

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%, and the schema already documents all parameters (url, apiKey, category, strategy) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Run'), resource ('PageSpeed Insights'), and outputs ('field Core Web Vitals, Lighthouse scores, and top opportunities'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like crux_field_data (field-only) or seo_audit (broader audit), even without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many similar siblings (e.g., crux_field_data, seo_audit, audit_site). The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer use cases and differentiation.

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