audit_external

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds concrete behavioral details (what is checked: HSTS, CSP, XFO, etc.) and confirms no source interaction. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then lists checks and key usage note. Every 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?

Given no output schema, description covers what the tool does comprehensively for an external audit. Slightly lacking on how results are returned, but adequate for selection and invocation.

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?

Only one parameter 'url' with 100% schema coverage. Description provides an example URL format, adding value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is exceeded by the practical example.

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?

Clearly states it audits a deployed website or API from the outside and lists specific checks (security headers, server info, caching, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like audit_headers or audit_security by the external, comprehensive nature.

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 'No source code needed,' guiding when to use this external audit vs. tools that require source access. Could more explicitly list when to use alternatives, but the context provides sufficient sibling differentiation.

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