site_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: return structure ('sorted issue list, grades and each section'), failure isolation ('a failed section is reported in checks while the others still return'), cost ($0.055 USDC) and latency (p99 60000ms). Missing details on authentication flow or error handling beyond section failures.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by return behavior, failure handling, cost comparison, and cost/latency. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 an aggregate audit tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values, failure isolation, cost, and latency. It could be more explicit about payment/auth flow and the format of the issue list, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only 'Set screenshot false to skip the image', which is largely redundant with the schema default and its description 'Include a 1280x800 screenshot as base64'. 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?

States a specific verb 'audits' and resource 'site', enumerates five audit domains (tech, TLS, accessibility, GDPR, domain), and positions itself against 'the six checks separately'. An agent can immediately tell what it does and how it relates to sibling check tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Cheaper than calling the six checks separately', guiding toward aggregate use. However, it does not state when to favor individual checks (e.g., if only one domain is needed), leaving that inference to the agent.

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