audit_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions returning scores and failed audits but does not disclose typical execution time, resource intensity, potential side effects (even if none), or limitations like whether localhost is supported. As a read-only audit, it should ideally state that it is non-destructive or note rate limits, but it does not.

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 verb and resource. It is highly concise, providing no redundant information, and every word adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of returned scores and failed audits is valuable. However, it does not explain the output format or potential error conditions, and it omits any note about preset/category defaults. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves some questions about behavior beyond the basics.

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 provides 100% coverage of all parameters (url, preset, categories) with descriptions, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description adds a slight contextual hint by saying 'all categories,' but it does not enhance understanding of parameter syntax, defaults, or interactions beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 specifies the tool's action: 'Run a detailed Lighthouse audit on a URL.' It also discloses the primary return value (scores for all categories, list of failed audits), giving the agent a precise understanding of what the tool does. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation isn't needed, but the description would stand out on its own.

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 implies usage for auditing URLs but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, the absence of alternative references is acceptable, but it still lacks context like 'use this to evaluate page quality' or conditions such as URL accessibility. Minimal viable but clear.

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