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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: each action carries its routine step and a record_action meta note so results are read at 28 and 56 days against the whole site, that previously shipped changes are included, and that the call is 'Free'. It does not describe ordering of the set or output volume, but the behavioral picture is substantially richer than the annotations alone.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and there is no filler boilerplate, but the entire description is one long run-on sentence whose mid-section is an eight-item enumeration of output contents. Some of that list earns its place because there is no output schema, yet the density makes it hard to scan quickly.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back — and it does: sources, action categories, per-action step and record_action meta, the 28/56-day evaluation window, prior shipped-change reads, and cost. An agent has enough to call it correctly and know what to expect.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to compensate for, and it introduces no confusing implicit inputs.

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 makes clear this tool assembles the week's prioritized SEO/AI-search action set, drawn from seo_read, seo_crawl and a visibility run — which distinguishes it from those sibling source tools. However, it is written as a noun phrase with no explicit verb ('the week's set'), so the agent must infer that this is a read that produces a curated work list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'so the founder does not choose item by item' hints this is the default entry point instead of picking tasks manually, and it names its upstream sources. But there is no explicit 'use this when…, use X instead when…' guidance, and the many sibling tools (today, plan, seo_read, site_fixes) are never addressed as alternatives.

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