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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds concrete runtime behavior: crawling up to 30 pages, HEAD-checking link targets, respecting a time budget, explicitly reporting partial crawls, and using its own crawler for free. These disclosures go well beyond the annotations.

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 first sentence is dense and valuable, listing scope and issue categories. However, the cost information is stated twice: 'FREE: fetches with SEOmatic's own crawler, no vendor spend' and 'Cost: FREE - crawls with SEOmatic's own crawler at call time, no AI credits.' This redundancy costs a point.

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 read-only audit with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers crawl source, size limit, cost, time-budget behavior, and partial-crawl caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the distinction between inventory-based crawling and passing specific URLs, which the schema already states. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the input schema covers.

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 'Site-WIDE technical SEO audit' and enumerates concrete issues it detects: duplicate titles, missing metas, canonical mismatches, broken internal links, etc. This clearly differentiates it from general page-listing or performance tools like site_pages and gsc_*.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when cross-page issues need to be surfaced beyond what a single-page check can see, and choose between the synced inventory or explicitly provided URLs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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