Audit Website AI Crawler & Lighthouse 13.5 Readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context (no API key required, read-only network check) and enumerates the exact inspection surfaces. It stops short of describing rate limits, failure modes, or return shape, so it improves on but does not fully exploit the behavioral space.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the exclusion guidance follows cleanly in a compact three-sentence block. It is somewhat acronym-dense (ARD 1.0, OAI-SearchBot, /.well-known paths), which increases reading cost without strictly earning its place for tool selection.

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 should ideally hint at what the audit returns; it lists the checked dimensions but not the report structure. Still, for a one-parameter read-only diagnostic it gives enough for correct invocation, with return-shape disclosure the only notable gap.

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% for the single url parameter, so the schema already documents accepted forms and the HTTPS-default behavior. The description adds no parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (audits) and resource (website URL/domain) and enumerates the exact checks performed (GPTBot access, RAG truncation, llms.txt, JSON-LD, Lighthouse agentic browsing). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling extraction and manifest-generation tools without opening any schema.

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 says to use this tool first when diagnosing why a site is omitted or misquoted by ChatGPT/Perplexity/Claude, and names two concrete exclusions with the correct alternatives (extract_byte0_markdown, generate_ai_manifests). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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