check_page_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation runs locally, requires no account, and is read-only in nature ('Read... report'). But it does not mention potential limitations such as network requirements, redirect handling, or behavior when the homepage lacks certain signals. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action, then lists the exact signals, and ends with the deployment/access note. Every clause adds value, and there is no repetition of schema or tool name. This is highly efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the target (homepage), the exact signals reported, and the access requirements. It could go slightly further by describing the output format or edge cases, but the enumeration of signals makes the expected return clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage for the only parameter is 100%: the 'url' field already includes a description with examples. The tool description adds the notion of reading the 'homepage', which slightly clarifies the parameter's semantic scope. Since the schema carries the parameter meaning, the description only needs minimal contribution, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('a site's homepage') with a concrete list of signals reported (title, description, canonical, hreflang, JSON-LD Schema.org types). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like check_ai_access and check_identity_files, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 conveys a clear usage context: analyzing on-page SEO/structured-data signals from a homepage. The note 'Runs locally, no account needed' is a practical guideline, and the sibling tool names further clarify when this tool fits. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be avoided or name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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