E-E-A-T site audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it checks a sample of articles and returns a pass/fail checklist with additions, which clarifies what the agent will receive.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the resource type and lists concrete checks before stating the return value. No filler or repetition exists, though the long enumeration could be slightly restructured for readability without losing 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?

For a read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is checked, what is returned, and the sampling behavior. It does not mention potential performance or sampling limits, but those are minor given the annotations and schema constraints.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains sampleArticles by mentioning 'a sample of articles checked for bylines and dates,' but does not elaborate on the integer's range or effect. siteUrl is self-evident and the schema already provides the URI format, so the partial compensation is acceptable but not complete.

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 resource ('site-level trust signals') and a clear outcome ('Returns a pass/fail checklist with what to add'). It enumerates concrete checks (About/Contact pages, schema, HTTPS, author pages, etc.), which distinguishes it from page-level or schema-only audits in the sibling list.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when an agent needs a site-wide E-E-A-T trust audit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the site-level scope and detailed checklist give enough context to select it over page-level or schema-specific siblings.

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