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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the $0.15 Base USDC cost and clarifies that the audit is based on supplied facts rather than a live fetch. It does not mention output format, errors, or side effects, so meaningful behavioral gaps remain.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. Purpose and cost or front-loaded, and each word contributes to agent understanding.

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?

There are no annotations, no output schema, and the input schema is effectively empty. The description omits the expected fact fields, the audit criteria, and the return value, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema only defines an empty 'input' object with additionalProperties true, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's 'public page facts' gives a general semantic hint, but it does not enumerate expected fields such as page title, meta description, canonical, or robots directives, so an agent cannot know what to populate.

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 uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('SEO metadata'), and clarifies that it operates on supplied public page facts. This distinguishes it from crawling-oriented siblings like website_health and sitemap_robots_audit, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'from supplied public page facts' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has page facts rather than needing to crawl the page. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative sibling tools are mentioned, leaving the usage condition largely implicit.

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