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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the audit criteria but does not describe output format or pagination; however, the schema covers the limit parameter's behavior, and the output schema exists. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and immediately comprehensible.

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 simple read-only audit tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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%, with both parameters fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (audit), resource (products), and the exact criteria (missing SEO title or short description). It clearly distinguishes from sibling audit tools like run_page_content_audit or run_product_image_audit by focusing on SEO metadata, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 implies the use case (auditing SEO metadata) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many other run_*_audit siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description.

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