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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the post-registration behavior (tracked/audited), but does not address the meaningfully non-idempotent hint -- i.e. whether re-registering the same URL creates a duplicate -- which is the highest-value behavior an agent would need.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; it states the action, target account, and purpose in one pass.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the duplicate/already-registered case implied by idempotentHint=false, which is the main gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 both url and label documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, constraint, or scoping detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Add a new website') and the domain (DidYouSEO account), plus the outcome (tracked and audited). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_sites or run_seo_audit, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 'so it can be tracked and audited' implies this is a prerequisite step before audit tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on what to do if the site already exists.

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