Start a site audit

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral details: it costs credits (with price shown before charge), is asynchronous, requires confirmation via a request key, and each finding identifies the affected page. These disclosures go well beyond the annotations and cover important operational traits.

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, front-loaded with the primary use case ('Run right after deploying'), and packs essential details (findings, cost, async polling) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (async, confirmation, request key), the description covers the initiation flow, cost implications, how to get results (poll with site_audit_get), and what the output contains (page-specific findings). It is complete for an async start tool, and the schema handles parameter specifics.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the confirm field is tied to credit cost ('price returned before any charge on the confirmation field') and that the request key is needed for retries to avoid double charging. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, hence a 4.

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 that the tool crawls a site and reports specific issues (broken links, missing titles/descriptions, redirect chains, thin content, schema gaps), naming the page for each finding. This is specific to the 'start audit' action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like site_audit_get (polling) and research tools.

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?

It says 'Run right after deploying' which gives a clear usage context, and mentions the async nature with polling via site_audit_get as an alternative. It also notes credit costs and the confirmation step, but does not explicitly list when not to use it, so it's slightly below a 5.

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