audit_url

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful operational constraints: it respects robots.txt and blocks private addresses. These are important behavioral facts not present in structured metadata, though rate limits and error behavior remain unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by key constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose and safety constraints, but omits what audit results are returned and provides no usage guidance relative to sibling tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 single parameter is obvious as a URL, but schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It adds that the URL must be a public page and that private addresses are blocked, but does not specify URL format, redirect handling, or scheme requirements.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch a public page') and the specific analysis ('audit static SEO'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings audit_html and crawl_site, but the scope is clear enough to identify the operation.

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 the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as audit_html or crawl_site. Selection between them is left entirely to inference.

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