Audit a web page

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

With no annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: 'Fast (no browser)' conveys the non-browser, lightweight nature, and 'single readable report' indicates output format. It does not detail limitations or error cases, but the provided traits are valuable for tool selection.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise, well-structured, and avoids unnecessary details.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the audit areas, states the output format, and clarifies how it differs from key sibling tools. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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 is 100% for the single required url parameter, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond referencing 'URL', which is redundant with the schema. 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as a one-shot URL audit covering tracking tags, duplicate-tag risks, header hygiene, and resource counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming specific alternatives for byte-level weight and lab Core Web Vitals.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (one-shot comprehensive audit) and points to alternatives: 'For byte-level page weight use analyze_page_weight; for lab Core Web Vitals use measure_performance.' This is clear and practical.

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