SiteAudit MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying what the tool returns ('all structured data found on the page with validation hints and a breakdown by schema type'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or other operational constraints. The description doesn't contradict the readOnlyHint=true annotation.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core function, describing the return value, and providing usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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, the presence of both annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, and the description's coverage of purpose, return format, and use case, this description is complete enough. The output schema will handle return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on what the tool does and why to use it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter (url) that's well-documented in the schema, the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It doesn't provide additional semantic context about the URL parameter beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 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 purpose with specific verbs ('extract and validate') and resources ('Schema.org structured data'), explicitly listing the formats handled (JSON-LD, microdata). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on structured data validation rather than accessibility, SEO, performance, or 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('critical for rich snippets in SERPs'), indicating it's valuable for search engine result page optimization. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the sibling list shows related audit tools that serve different purposes.

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