Audit page SEO

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the concrete check set, that a live fetch happens, and that the tool returns a 0-100 score with issues. It omits behavior on fetch failures and rate limiting, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the check enumeration after; no filler. The laundry list of eleven checks is long but each item genuinely signals audit coverage, so it mostly 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and roughly what comes back (score plus issues). Missing edge-case behavior (unreachable pages, redirects, rate limits) is the only real gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with an example URL already in the schema. The description adds nothing about the URL beyond "one web page," so the schema carries all parameter meaning — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one web page and run an on-page SEO and technical audit") plus the exact dimension list, so an agent knows precisely what it does. The phrase "one web page" implicitly scopes it against the site-level sibling audit_site, but no sibling is named.

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 single-page framing implies when to pick this over audit_site or check_links, but that routing is left to inference. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-naming guidance.

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