Audit a website for machine legibility

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds significant context: makes one outbound request, only sees what fetch can establish, refuses private/loopback/link-local addresses, and reports unreachable pages rather than scoring error bodies. This exceeds annotation coverage and provides critical behavioral details.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose and key features, each sentence adding new information: checklist, score, one outbound request, security restrictions, and unreachable behavior. No fluff or repetition.

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 output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and security constraints comprehensively. It details limitations (no rendering) and edge cases (unreachable pages), making it complete for the agent to know what to expect.

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% with clear description for url, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by specifying the URL must be absolute http(s) and gives an example, as well as implying constraints (real site, public address), compensating slightly above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool audits a website for machine legibility, listing specific checks (JSON-LD, llms.txt, etc.) and outputs a 0-100 score. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning auditing a live site, which is unique among upshift_template_match and upshift_quote.

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 instructs to use this tool to check a real site before recommending changes, which contrasts with the sibling tools' likely non-audit purposes. It also explains when it's appropriate (real site) and what it does not do (no rendering or browser metrics), providing clear context for selection.

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