audit_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It partially meets it by stating that every finding comes with evidence and by enumerating audit areas. However, it does not disclose whether the tool only reads the site, how it behaves under crawl limits, or what operational constraints apply; 'audit' implies read-only, but much behavior is left to inference.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the audit areas are front-loaded and the evidence guarantee follows immediately. Every clause adds useful information, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with only two schema-covered parameters.

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 and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the returned findings look like; 'each finding with evidence' is vague about evidence structure and categories. It also omits practical constraints such as crawl time, error conditions, or how results are organized. The schema covers input limits, but an agent still lacks enough detail to interpret the output confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents url and max_pages, including the default and maximum values, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general audit scope. It does not explain how max_pages affects the depth or completeness of the audit.

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 states a specific action and resource: a technical site audit, and lists audited areas (indexing, metadata, headings, canonical URLs, markup, internal linking). This distinguishes it from the sibling keyword/tracking tools. It could be sharper by naming a concrete output artifact, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The only usage signal is the generic 'technical audit' phrase, so an agent is not told when to choose this over other SEO tools like get_action_plan or get_competition.

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