seo-audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior: checks ~7 signals, returns a weighted 0-100 AI-readiness score and top fixes. It does not mention side effects or limits, but as a read-only audit, this is acceptable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then alternatives. No unnecessary words. Highly concise.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what signals are checked, the score range, and how this tool fits with sibling tools.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter `url` with a clear description. The tool description adds a brief mention ('takes a `url`'), but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 audits a URL for AI-search readiness (AEO/GEO/LLMO), specifies what it checks (~7 signals), and distinguishes from siblings (full_seo_audit, get_my_store_audit).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (AI-search readiness), and provides alternatives: 'Use full_seo_audit for the broader SEO picture, or get_my_store_audit for the user's own connected store.'

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes behavior: no login needed, crawl-based, returns a weighted score and top issues. It lists what it checks, indicating a safe read operation. It could mention speed or limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise: two sentences front-loaded with the main action and scope, then details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 what is returned (score + issues) and covers the major SEO areas. Since there's no output schema, this is sufficient. It could mention expected execution time or asynchronous nature, but overall it's complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'url', which already describes the input. The description adds minimal extra ('Takes a `url`'), effectively repeating the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 given high coverage, so no deduction.

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 it performs a comprehensive crawl-audit of any URL covering SEO aspects like AI-search signals, on-page, technical, and Shopify-specific schema. It uses specific verbs ('crawl-audit') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by including Shopify store-specific analysis, setting it apart from ai_search_diagnostic and get_my_store_audit.

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?

It explicitly specifies the tool is for auditing arbitrary websites ('any URL') and contrasts with get_my_store_audit for the user's own connected store. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires an API key and a connected store, and produces a deep internal report. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 paragraph with three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides key details about capability and authentication. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It gives a high-level list of categories (technical, performance, etc.) but is not exhaustive. Prerequisites and authentication are well covered, but the full structure of the output is missing, which may leave an agent uncertain about the response format.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the api_key parameter can be passed either as an argument or as an Authorization header. This clarifies usage for the one parameter, even though the schema already describes it well. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 'Get the user's OWN connected Shopify store audit' and specifies it's a deep 12-category report. It distinguishes from URL crawling and implies it is for the user's own store, setting it apart from sibling tools like ai_search_diagnostic and full_seo_audit.

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 description mentions when to use it ('far beyond what crawling a URL can see') and what not to do ('Takes no url'). It also notes prerequisites (Inxy API key, connected store) and alternative ways to pass the key. However, it does not explicitly compare with the named sibling tools.

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