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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it spells out the filter semantics, the metaDesc provenance enum (own|template|none), and a subtle edge case — a noindex row is excluded from every filter except noindex. That noindex behavior is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose and the returned shape, and each sentence carries weight (filters, edge case, sibling routing, prerequisite). It is information-dense and multi-clause, which borders on crowded, but nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the remaining gaps: kinds, filter semantics, the noindex edge case, related tools, and the required skill doc. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters (baseline 3). The description adds genuine meaning on top: what `filter` narrows to per value (noMetaDesc = no description at all, noCustomTitle = title is the type's template) and the cross-filter noindex exclusion rule.

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 (List) and resource (what search engines see), then enumerates the three kinds it covers (records, archives, terms) and the exact seo fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get-seo (opens one) and set-seo (writes it), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Clear context and explicit alternatives: get-seo to open a single record and set-seo to write it, plus a prerequisite rule to read the seo-contract skill doc before the first call. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a stated trigger for choosing this over a generic list-content call, so it falls just short of a 5.

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