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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what metrics are returned (server response time, page size, compression status, redirect chain analysis, caching header review) and that it performs a 'check' operation. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, but with annotations covering safety, the added context is sufficient for good transparency.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second details the return values. Every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool with clear output expectations.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint), 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It clearly explains what the tool does, what metrics it returns, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.

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% with one parameter ('url' with description 'URL to check for performance'). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 specific action ('Check page performance') and the resource being acted upon ('page'), with detailed scope covering response time, page size, compression, caching, redirect chain analysis, and caching header review. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'accessibility_audit', 'security_audit', and 'seo_audit' by focusing specifically on performance metrics rather than other audit types.

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 context (performance checking of web pages) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lighthouse_audit' or 'full_audit'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar audit tools in the sibling list.

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