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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'analysis' without indicating whether the tool is read-only, if it makes external API calls, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects (if any) exist. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool that invokes an external service.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and method, making optimal use of 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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention what the analysis returns (e.g., metric scores, diagnostics), possible limitations, or how the 'strategy' parameter affects results. The description covers only the basic purpose, leaving substantial context missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or elaborate on the 'url' or 'strategy' parameters. While the schema defines the enum for strategy, the description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them correctly beyond raw schema names.

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 performs Core Web Vitals analysis via Google PageSpeed Insights, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling SEO check tools by focusing on performance metrics, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 purpose is clear enough to imply when to use the tool (when Core Web Vitals/performance analysis is needed), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like seo_quick_audit or seo_deep_audit. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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