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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior and non-read-only. The description adds that the scan is queued, the API rejects without email, and results are emailed. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it could mention potential delays or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, each essential. The first sentence states the core action, the second warns about email, and the third outlines the follow-up workflow. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 only two required params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input requirements and the expected behavior. It integrates the tool into the broader workflow with sibling tools, providing a complete picture for the agent.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds emphasis on the email requirement, instructing the agent to ask the user, and clarifies that missing URL scheme will be added. This adds meaning beyond the schema, earning above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool queues an SEO scan and returns a scan_id. The verb 'queue' and resource 'SEO scan' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scan_status (polling) and get_scan_results (retrieving findings) by outlining the post-submit workflow.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and the required workflow: collect email, submit, then poll get_scan_status until complete, then get_scan_results. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond the workflow, but the context is clear.

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