Problèmes d'une page

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 covered. The description adds the GET endpoint and the data scope, which is consistent. It does not disclose any crawl dependency or response behavior beyond the content list, but there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 but somewhat redundant: it repeats 'Problèmes d'une page' from the title and then says 'Problèmes propres à la page,' which restates the same idea. The key specifics (links to errored/redirected URLs, linking pages) and the endpoint are present, but a few words could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 read-only tool with three schema-covered parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture of the response content and the endpoint. It could explicitly mention the response shape or the requirement that a crawl exists, but the essential information for calling the tool is present in the description and schema.

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%: url ('URL de la page'), crawl ('ID du crawl'), and siteId ('ID site encodé') are all documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the resource as a page's Screaming Frog issues, enumerating the specific data it returns: page-specific problems, links to errored/redirected URLs, and pages linking to an errored page. This distinguishes it from siblings like getScreamingFrogIssue (a single issue) or getScreamingFrogDashboard (an overview). It lacks an explicit action verb, but the name 'getScreamingFrogPage' and the GET endpoint fill that gap.

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 implies when to use it—when you need problems specific to a page in a crawl—but gives no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention how it relates to getScreamingFrogIssue, listScreamingFrogCrawls, or the dashboard. The usage context is inferable from the content, not stated.

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