prufa_run_audit

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: rate-limited, blocking vs non-blocking, response content including both 'findings JSON' and 'queued' status with identifiers. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences pack all essential information: purpose, output, two modes. No fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description lists return fields (tracking pixels, etc.) and handles both blocking and non-blocking responses. Covers rate limiting and authorization. Complete for a two-param tool.

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 already covers both params with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining wait parameter's effect and that url must be authorized, which is extra context beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run a public-page QA audit on a URL' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling prufa_get_report by explaining wait behavior and two modes of 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?

Provides guidance on when to use wait=true vs wait=false, mentions rate limiting, and alludes to polling via sibling tool. Could be more explicit about when to use prufa_get_report.

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