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

Annotations only flag it as a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write; the description adds substantial context beyond that: robots.txt compliance, rate limiting, a few-minute runtime, a capped page count with in-report disclosure, and redirect resolution to the final site. It also pre-announces the return payload so the agent knows what to relay.

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 the trigger clause, then operational facts, then the permission caveat — a sensible order. It is a dense single block rather than broken into points, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information, with only mild redundancy between the crawl description and the robots/rate-limit note.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent what comes back (audit_id, page limit, time estimate) so it can set user expectations. Combined with runtime, cap, redirect, and permission details, nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 coverage is 0% and the single "url" property has no description, so the description must carry it: it specifies that a bare domain or a full URL is acceptable and that the scheme is optional, plus that redirects resolve to the audited site. Only remaining gap is whether paths/subdirectories are honored.

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 and resource ("starts a crawl of that site") and enumerates the exact defect classes it surfaces (broken links, redirects, titles/meta, canonical/hreflang, sitemap, orphaned pages). It also states the immediate outcome ("returns an audit_id, the page limit and a time estimate"), which cleanly separates it from the report/status siblings.

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?

"Use this when the user asks for a technical SEO audit, a site crawl, or a check for..." gives an explicit, generous trigger list, and "Only use it for sites the user owns or is allowed to audit" adds a clear guardrail. It never names get_audit_status or get_audit_report as the follow-on path, so the workflow routing is left implicit.

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