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 crawls the URL, requires no login, returns a weighted 0–100 score plus top issues, and returns only a summary while the full report goes via email. It does not mention rate limits or robots.txt compliance, which keeps it just short of a 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?

The description is long but densely informative: each clause names a concrete SEO area, and the sibling-tool distinction is front-loaded near the end. No filler words appear, though the first sentence is quite packed and could be split for easier parsing.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers input format, audit scope, output type, authentication expectation ('no login needed'), alternatives, and where the complete report is delivered. The agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%: the `url` property already explains it is the website URL with an example. The description merely repeats 'Takes a `url`' and adds 'ANY URL', which adds only marginal clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific action ('Crawl-audit'), a clearly defined target ('ANY URL'), and a bounded scope ('the WHOLE SEO surface'), then enumerates the covered areas: AI-search signals, on-page SEO, technical SEO, and Shopify schema. It distinguishes itself from get_my_store_audit, so the agent knows exactly what this tool is and is not.

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 states when to use this tool ('ANY URL', 'arbitrary website', 'no login needed') and names the alternative for a different case: 'for the user's OWN connected store with real analytics, use get_my_store_audit.' It also mentions email_seo_report for the full written report, giving clear routing context.

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