Audit Site Batch

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: it collects URLs from configurable sources, runs a 'lightweight' audit, and returns aggregate scores, top problems, quick wins, and critical pages. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, how it collects URLs, and what it returns. The core 'batch audit' behavior is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description explains the input source options and the main output categories (aggregate scores, problems, quick wins, critical pages), which is adequate given there is no output schema. It could mention behavior around the urls parameter or defaults, but the schema already covers parameter-level details.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds some context by tying the source parameter to the 'sitemap, crawl, or a provided list' behavior, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Batch audit multiple pages'), a resource ('a site'), and the method of URL collection ('sitemap, crawl, or a provided list'). It distinguishes itself from single-page audit siblings like audit_onpage by emphasizing batch and aggregate behavior.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for auditing multiple pages in batch, while siblings like audit_onpage or crawl_site cover narrower or different tasks. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over those alternatives or when not to use it.

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