site_health_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states 'health audit' but does not say whether it is read-only, what data is checked, what output the user can expect, or any side effects. 'Audit' implies a non-mutating action, but that is not explicit, and no details on return values or limitations are given.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. The word 'Comprehensive' is somewhat vague but not wasteful. It is well-front-loaded and easily scannable, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitted contextual detail.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too terse to be complete. It does not explain what 'health audit' entails, what each level (summary, full, crawl_issues) returns, or how it relates to sibling tools like diagnostics or seo_audit. The tool has three optional parameters, but the description gives no sense of when to adjust them.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions the two search engines, but the engine parameter already enumerates google, bing, and all. No additional meaning is provided for 'level' or 'siteUrl'. Thus it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 is specific in scope: a health audit across Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster Tools. It clearly indicates the resource (site health) and the action (audit). However, it doesn't contrast with sibling tools like seo_audit or diagnostics, so it only partially distinguishes itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this for...' or 'instead of...', and the sibling tools (seo_audit, diagnostics, compare_engines) suggest plausible overlap, but the description gives no criteria for choosing this one.

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