audit_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (readiness level, score percentage, individual checks) and explains the score scale (0-5 with examples for 5 and 0). It doesn't mention potential side effects, but an audit is inherently non-destructive.

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 primary action, and includes the most critical output information in just two sentences. No redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: what it does, what it returns, and the meaning of the scale. It could be improved by noting whether it is a read-only operation or indicating appropriate use cases relative to sibling tools, but overall it's sufficient for this simplicity level.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'url' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('a website'), and explicitly describes the output (readiness level, score percentage, individual check results). It effectively distinguishes this single-URL auditing tool from siblings like bulk_audit by focusing on a single website.

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 usage for auditing a single website, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_audit or compare_urls. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, but the singular 'a website' suggests single-site audits.

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