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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely valuable security note that 'Analyst text is untrusted' – a prompt-injection warning about output content that the annotations do not convey. It omits pagination and response-shape details, keeping it below 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb and resource lead. The phrase 'the seven checks' is slightly cryptic but still informative and compact.

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 six-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits pagination (limit/cursor), filtering (query/state/page_ids), and workspace scoping. An agent would need to guess how to page or filter, which is a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate but largely doesn't. It hints at the 'state' enum ('states') but says nothing about limit, cursor, query, page_ids, or workspace semantics, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (saved page SEO scores, states, and the seven checks), which tells an agent what comes back. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like pages_list, but the SEO-audit scope is clear enough to infer.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. pages_list for raw pages vs this for SEO audits), and no stated prerequisites such as needing an existing audit run. Usage is only implied by the fact that it reads saved data.

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