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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ~7 signals checked, the return type (weighted 0–100 score + top fixes), and the limitation that it returns a summary only (full report via email). It doesn't explicitly state the audit is read-only or mention URL accessibility requirements, but 'Audit ANY URL' implies a non-mutating operation; a small transparency gap remains.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and scope, then follows a logical flow: signals checked, output format, parameter, sibling routing, and report escalation. Every sentence contributes distinct information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only audit with no output schema or annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what inputs it takes, what it returns, which siblings to use instead, and how to get the complete report. No critical operational detail is missing.

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% (url described with 'The website URL to audit, e.g. https://example.com'), so baseline is 3. The description adds 'ANY URL' and the contrast with get_my_store_audit, clarifying that the parameter accepts arbitrary public URLs, not just connected stores. This goes slightly 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Audit ANY URL') with a precise scope ('AI-search readiness only (AEO/GEO/LLMO)'), clearly differentiating it from full SEO audits. It enumerates concrete signals checked and the output (0–100 score + top fixes), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 names alternatives with conditions: 'Use full_seo_audit for the broader SEO picture, or get_my_store_audit for the user's own connected store.' Also routes to email_seo_report for the full written report, informing the agent when this tool suffices and when a sibling is more appropriate.

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