score_page

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description goes further: it discloses deterministic scoring from the same checks as audit_page, the optional headless-chromium rendering behavior, the overall 0-100 and grade output, and specifically which categories are not mechanically assessed. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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 detailed but every sentence adds value: what is scored, how the score is derived, the two input modes, returned values, and the coverage limitation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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 no output schema, the description provides the important return values: per-category 0-10 scores, overall 0-100 score, A-D grade, the weakest category, and guidance on unassessed categories. Combined with full parameter schema coverage and annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, html, strict, and containerMaxWidth. The description reinforces the url vs html distinction and rendered DOM behavior, but it does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema states. The baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Score an HTML/CSS page across 7 design categories'. It lists the categories and clarifies the scoring scales, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces and can distinguish it from audit-style siblings like audit_page.

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 gives clear context for invocation by specifying two routes: pass html directly, or pass url for rendered-DOM scoring. It also references audit_page and the categories not mechanically assessed, which hints at the tool's place relative to alternatives. It does not explicitly state when to prefer score_page over audit_page, but the usage context is clear.

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