Audit page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it fetches the live URL, follows redirect chains, and can fetch canonical and up to ten hreflang alternates, plus it discloses the return shape (parsed signals plus an issue list). It does not mention rate limits, timeouts, or auth needs, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence covers the return value. The dense enumeration of checks is long but each phrase maps to a real signal or issue category, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden (parsed signals plus issues) and enumerates the checked categories in detail. For a single-URL audit tool whose annotations cover safety, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling routing is missing.

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 67%, with checkHreflang and checkCanonicalTarget already documented in the schema, so the heavy lifting is done structurally. The description mentions hreflang and canonical-target checks, loosely mapping to those toggles, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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 names a specific verb (fetches/checks) and resource (a live URL's technical SEO signals) and enumerates the exact checks performed, so the agent knows precisely what the tool does. It falls short of a 5 because it never differentiates itself from close siblings like inspect_url, pagespeed, or bulk_inspect.

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 explains what is checked but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative. With siblings such as inspect_url and pagespeed in the same family, an agent gets no signal about which to pick for a single-page technical audit.

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