seo_page_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well on cost/behavior: per-event pricing ($0.001 for each mode), no API keys required, Apify-hosted run, platform usage billed. It stops short of describing failure modes, rate limits, or what the audit record contains, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the capability in the first paragraph before pricing and hosting details. All sentences are relevant, though the pricing/platform paragraph is slightly verbose and could be compressed. No wasted 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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and modes but never describes the shape of the returned audit record or SERP preview result (beyond 'truncation flags'). An agent knows how to call it but not fully what to expect back, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 every parameter is already documented (mode enum, pageUrls, _maxItems vs collection distinction, _maxChargeUsd cap). The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the pricing context that clarifies the charge cap. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'full on-page audits per URL (meta tags, headings, images, links, structured data, hreflang) plus Google SERP snippet previews.' The two modes and concrete data captured are named explicitly, so an agent knows exactly what it produces. Siblings like web_page_markdown or jsonld_entities overlap thematically, but the description's 'audit + SERP preview' framing is distinctive enough to differentiate.

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 two modes are described in the schema ('onpage = audit URLs; serp_preview = Google snippet preview'), which implies when each applies, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to overlapping siblings (jsonld_entities for structured data, web_page_markdown for raw content). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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