SiteAudit MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what is compared (SEO, performance, and security scores) and the competitive analysis use case, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or output format details, though some of this may be covered by the output schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise usage guideline. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and good annotations, with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (comparing multiple sites), the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema reduces the burden on the description. The description covers purpose and usage context adequately. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the output structure or limitations, though the output schema may handle this. It's sufficient but not exhaustive.

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% description coverage, with the 'urls' parameter fully documented as 'Comma-separated URLs to compare (e.g., 'example.com,competitor.com')'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 purpose: 'Compare SEO and performance scores of multiple websites side by side.' It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resources 'websites' with the scope 'SEO and performance scores.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'seo_audit' or 'performance_audit' by emphasizing multi-site comparison rather than single-site analysis.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Useful for competitive analysis — see how your site stacks up against competitors across SEO, performance, and security.' This explicitly states when to use the tool (competitive analysis) and implies it's for comparing against competitors. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the context suggests it's for multi-site comparison versus single-audit tools.

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