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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it does a fresh live fetch, the rate limit, and the absence of auth, which covers key behavioral aspects. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of an audit implies no side effects. Slightly more detail about what happens on invalid domains or the exact output format would push it to a 5, but it is quite transparent overall.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately followed by usage guidance and limitations. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given a single simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how it differs from a sibling, and operational limits. An agent can confidently invoke it without missing critical information.

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 100% and the domain parameter is already described as 'Company domain or URL, e.g. example.com'. The tool description adds no extra semantic beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without adding additional nuance.

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 runs a LIVE AEO audit, listing exactly which resources it fetches (homepage, robots.txt, sitemap, llms.txt, about page) and what it produces (scores on six on-page categories with recommendations). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling aeo_score, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to verify fixes immediately after applying them, and contrasts it with aeo_score which returns the stored dataset score on the next crawl. It also states constraints (free, no auth, 5 per hour) and the single parameter domain, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to use it.

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