fetch_audit_data

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

Describes that it returns a JSON object and infers brand_name/industry from content, which adds behavioral context. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or destructive potential, but crawl is typically non-destructive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and return type, no superfluous words. Each sentence adds 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, description thoroughly covers return object fields and inference logic. Could mention potential prerequisites like robots.txt restrictions, but overall sufficient for agent understanding.

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% with one parameter 'url' already described as 'Full URL to audit'. Description adds example format but no new meaning beyond schema, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool crawls a website and fetches Ahrefs SEO metrics. It lists the specific return fields (crawl, ahrefs, brand_name, industry) and distinguishes from sibling tools by being the primary audit data fetcher.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this first when auditing a site,' providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling names imply different purposes.

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