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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: it reads exactly one page, honors robots.txt disallow for Agent Tools (skipping instead of fetching), and does not execute JavaScript. These are real constraints an agent could not infer from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose then usage examples then return values, and every clause carries information. It is somewhat long, and the enumerated return fields are partly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is 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?

Given an output schema covers returns, the description still goes beyond by documenting the robots.txt skip, no-JS limitation, Shopify-specific fields, and store-agnostic scope. An agent has everything needed 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% with a single well-documented url parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'pass the product page address' and the Shopify variant note, adding little 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?

States a specific verb (checks) and resource (SEO and Product data of a product page), and its scope is clearly narrower than siblings like check_page_tags or landing_page_check. The agent can distinguish this from a general page-tags check without opening a 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?

Gives concrete trigger examples ('is ... set up for search?', 'does my product page have Product structured data?') and explicit exclusions (not for page speed, rankings, traffic, price/catalog collection, or private/local addresses). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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