audit_conversion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Returns scored feedback with specific improvements,' which discloses the output nature. The audit framing implies non-destructive read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly confirm this or address any permissions or side effects. Still, it provides enough for a simple audit tool.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence leads with the verb, target, and evaluation criteria; the second states the output. There is no filler, repetition, or fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, evaluation framework, and return type. It could mention that only text is audited, but 'page text/description' already conveys that. Slight room for improvement in noting limitations, but it's adequate.

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 parameter page_text, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose by using the same phrase 'page text/description' and adds context about the 4 pillars, but it does not add any new format or constraint information beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Audit' with a precise target ('page text/description') and names the exact evaluation framework ('4 psychological pillars of conversion'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_visual or check_accessibility by focusing on text and conversion-specific criteria.

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 use for auditing text content against conversion pillars, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over audit_content or audit_visual, nor does it list exclusions or alternatives. The lack of exclusions makes it a 4 rather than a 5.

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