Tableau de bord Screaming Frog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds what content is returned but not behavioral traits such as default crawl handling, data freshness, or response format; this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 compact and enumerates the dashboard contents efficiently. However, it starts by repeating the title 'Tableau de bord Screaming Frog' and appends the endpoint as metadata, which adds minor redundancy rather than 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry some return expectations. It lists the main components, but it does not describe the structure, score scale, priority representation, or how the optional crawl parameter affects results, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so both siteId and crawl are already documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states the tool returns a Screaming Frog dashboard with crawl, crawl quality, categorized issues with priority and score, 12 priority actions, and most affected pages. This is concrete and specific, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb like 'Récupère' and does not explicitly compare itself to sibling detail tools.

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 'Tableau de bord' wording implies this is for a high-level dashboard view, but the description does not say when to use this tool instead of listScreamingFrogActions, listScreamingFrogCrawls, or getScreamingFrogIssue. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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