get_page_lighthouse

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values but omits behavioral traits such as whether it's a live audit with latency, any quota/cost implications, prerequisites like a valid URL format, or safety (read-only) status. The 'get' verb implies reading, but no explicit transparency.

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 concise: two sentences, first states the purpose, second lists outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description lists the key returned metrics and specifies device options. It is mostly complete, though it lacks details like score ranges or data types, which would enhance completeness.

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 already provides 100% description coverage, including the enum and default for 'device'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'Lighthouse/Core Web Vitals metrics for a URL' and lists specific metrics returned, making it distinctly a performance audit tool compared to sibling tools like analyze_page_seo or get_keyword_trends.

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 page speed/CWV analysis but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative differentiation. Sibling tools like analyze_page_seo could overlap, and the description does not state when to choose this over others.

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