Google says these brands are ready for AI agents. Not one of them is.
We ran Google's own agent-readiness audit across 181 Australian brands. Twenty-two scored a perfect 100%. Eighteen of those expose nothing at all to an agent.
Measured. Every figure comes from a live scan on 20 August 2026. Nothing here is modelled.
What Google shipped, and why it matters
In May 2026 Lighthouse 13.3 added an Agentic Browsing category, and PageSpeed Insights inherited it within a fortnight. For the first time, the tool every agency already runs weekly started grading whether a website can be used by an AI agent.
The category runs six checks: whether the page structure is well formed, whether the layout is stable, whether an llms.txt exists, and three WebMCP checks covering registered tools, form coverage and schema validity. WebMCP is the emerging browser standard that lets a page expose typed, callable tools to an in-browser agent, replacing screen-scraping with a real function call.
We wanted to know what that grade actually says about Australian business. So we ran it against 181brands that people transact with: supermarkets, banks, airlines, insurers, telcos, energy retailers, government services, universities and retailers. Not the ASX 200, because a mining conglomerate’s investor site has no transaction surface to measure.
What we found is that the grade is, at present, close to meaningless. That matters more than the low scores, because a misleading measurement is worse than no measurement.
A perfect score is awarded for exposing nothing
If a site has no agent tools, Google does not mark it down for that. It decides those checks do not apply, removes them from the report card, and works out the score from whatever is left.
That happened to 166 of the 175 sites we scanned, out of 181 attempted. All three agent-tool checks were removed. For most, the llms.txt check was removed as well. What was left were two checks that have nothing to do with agents and existed years before them: whether the page structure is well formed, and whether the layout jumps around while it loads. Those two checks produced the entire grade.
So the headline number is not a pass mark. It is a score out of two questions, presented as though it answered six.
The result is that 22 sites scored 100%, and 18 of them have no agent-callable tools and no llms.txt file. Telstra, AGL and Origin Energy each score a flawless 100 while offering an arriving agent no way to do anything at all.
| Site | Sector | Score | Checks run | Agent tools | llms.txt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| telstra.com.au | Telco | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| agl.com.au | Energy | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| originenergy.com.au | Energy | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| healthdirect.gov.au | Health | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| service.nsw.gov.au | Government | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| aldi.com.au | Grocery | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| menulog.com.au | Food | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| boq.com.au | Banking | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| zip.co | Banking | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| aami.com.au | Insurance | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| budgetdirect.com.au | Insurance | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| hotdoc.com.au | Health | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| ahm.com.au | Health | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| aussiebroadband.com.au | Telco | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| iinet.net.au | Telco | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| nandos.com.au | Food | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| sbs.com.au | Media | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
| yvw.com.au | Utilities | 100% | 2 of 6 | none | absent |
Every agent-ready site in Australia is a Shopify store
Nine of 175 sites expose WebMCP tools. All nine run Shopify. Not one of the other 165 sites, across banking, telco, travel, insurance, energy, government or education, exposes a single callable tool.
None of the nine built anything. Every tool on every one of those sites is served from the same file:
- search_catalog
- browse_store
- get_product
- show_variant
- get_cart
- update_cart
- cancel_cart
- proceed_to_checkout
- manage_orders
- search_shop_policies_and_faqs
| Site | Sector | Score | Tools | Where they came from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| jbhifi.com.au | Retail | 75% | 10 | Shopify default |
| kathmandu.com.au | Retail | 75% | 10 | Shopify default |
| harrisfarm.com.au | Grocery | 75% | 10 | Shopify default |
| princesspolly.com.au | Fashion | 75% | 10 | Shopify default |
| universalstore.com | Fashion | 75% | 10 | Shopify default |
| jeanswest.com.au | Fashion | 75% | 10 | Shopify default |
| generalpants.com | Fashion | 73% | 10 | Shopify default |
| lornajane.com.au | Fashion | 99% | 10 | Shopify default |
| gluestore.com.au | Fashion | 100% | 10 | Shopify default |
This is the single most consequential finding in the dataset. Agent readiness in Australia is not being adopted, it is being distributed. It arrives when your platform vendor ships it, and it arrives complete, including tools that change state: update_cart, proceed_to_checkout and manage_orders are all registered by default.
The strategic implication is uncomfortable for anyone selling agent-readiness consulting. Exposure is becoming free. What remains scarce is knowing which tools matter, whether agents actually call them, and whether those calls turn into revenue.
A static score cannot tell you which agents arrived, or what they tried to do.
We measured 175 front doors once. Your own site answers a different question, every day: which AI engines and agents reach you, what they ask for, and whether anything on the page lets them act. Run the free check on your own domain and see what is actually there.
Run the free check on my site →The same site, the same day, a 77-point swing
We re-ran 35 sites under identical conditions a few hours after the first pass. 7 changed score. The average change was 26 points.
| Site | First run | Second run | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| amazon.com.au | 100% | 23% | −77 |
| greatsouthernbank.com.au | 100% | 51% | −49 |
| gluestore.com.au | 75% | 100% | +25 |
| qut.edu.au | 100% | 84% | −16 |
Amazon Australia was rated perfectly agent-ready in one run and near-worst in the cohort a few hours later. Nothing on the site changed. The two checks carrying the entire score are performance-sensitive, so the grade tracks network conditions rather than agent readiness.
A measurement that moves 77 points on an unchanged site cannot support a decision. If you are reporting this number to a client month over month, you are reporting noise.
Where Australian business actually stands
Setting the score aside and counting only what is observably true: tools present, and llms.txt present.
| Sector | Sites | Mean score | With tools | With llms.txt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fashion | 16 | 54% | 6 | 11 |
| Retail | 28 | 47% | 2 | 10 |
| Grocery | 5 | 64% | 1 | 2 |
| Banking | 14 | 56% | 0 | 6 |
| Insurance | 10 | 61% | 0 | 1 |
| Telco | 10 | 64% | 0 | 3 |
| Health | 9 | 69% | 0 | 1 |
| Energy | 8 | 62% | 0 | 0 |
| Marketplace | 10 | 55% | 0 | 2 |
| Auto | 8 | 58% | 0 | 2 |
| Education | 10 | 56% | 0 | 1 |
| Food | 11 | 46% | 0 | 5 |
| Media | 9 | 50% | 0 | 0 |
| Government | 7 | 48% | 0 | 0 |
| Travel | 11 | 35% | 0 | 4 |
| Pharmacy | 4 | 26% | 0 | 3 |
| Liquor | 3 | 17% | 0 | 2 |
Travel is the sharpest gap in the dataset. Airlines and booking sites attract exactly the intent an agent is built to act on, a search with dates and constraints, and score lowest of any transacting sector at 35%. Not one exposes a callable tool.
Only 30% of the cohort publishes an llms.txt, and 77% fail Google’s page-structure check, which is a plain-language signal that agents struggle to read the page at all.
How this was measured, and what it cannot tell you
Lighthouse 13.4.1 driving headless Chrome 151, --only-categories=agentic-browsing, one run per homepage, desktop user agent, 20 August 2026. Forty-four sites were re-run strictly serially to remove contention from the performance-sensitive checks, and those serial results supersede the parallel ones wherever both exist.
Reading the cohort numbers. Two counts appear throughout, and they are not the same number. 181 sites were attempted, which is the cohort we set out to measure. 6 of them could not be scanned at all, for the reasons in limitation two below. That leaves 175 sites with results, and every finding, table and percentage in this report is computed over those 175. The 6 excluded sites are not counted as failures anywhere.
Limitations we will not paper over:
- Homepages only. A tool registered on a deeper route, a product page or a booking flow, would not be seen. The zero for non-Shopify sites is a zero on the front door, not a proof of total absence.
- Six sites could not be scanned. Dan Murphy's, Subway, KFC, realestate.com.au, Gumtree and Ford blocked automated access or presented an invalid certificate. They are excluded, not counted as failures.
- WebMCP is an origin trial. Sites not registered for it cannot register tools even if they wanted to. That is context for the low numbers, not an excuse for the scoring behaviour.
- The category is experimental and Google labels it as such. Our criticism is that it is already visible in PageSpeed Insights, where that label does not stop anyone reporting the number to a client.
- One measurement per site. Given the instability we documented, single runs should be treated as indicative. That applies to our own numbers as much as anyone’s.
What to do with a score that cannot be trusted
- The score is not a target. It rewards absence, penalises effort, and moves by tens of points on an unchanged site. Optimising for it is optimising for nothing.
- The underlying checks are still worth passing. A well-formed page structure, a stable layout and an llms.txt are real, cheap and useful, and 77% of Australian brands fail the first one. Do that work because it helps, not because it moves a number.
- Exposure is arriving without you. Nine of ten Shopify storefronts in this cohort became agent-ready without their merchants doing anything. If your platform ships it, you will get it. If it does not, the question is whether you need it yet.
The honest timing noteAgent-driven transaction volume today is small. Nothing in this report says otherwise, and anyone presenting agent commerce as a live revenue channel in Australia right now is ahead of the evidence. The argument for paying attention is that being early is currently cheap, not that the money has arrived.
The question worth asking is not “what is my agent-readiness score.” It is which agents are arriving, what they are trying to do, and whether anything on the page lets them do it. No static audit can answer that, because the answer only exists in your own traffic.
Start with your own traffic.
The free AI visibility check reads your site the way an AI engine does, and tells you what it can and cannot use. Verified, and ready in under a minute.
We will scan these 181 sites again. Get the next one.
Every re-run, we publish what moved, who started exposing tools, and whether Google has fixed the scoring. Plus the weekly AI Visibility Ladder. Free, and measured the same way.