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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers exceptionally well. It clearly states the WRITE action, that facts are queued and unverified until human approval, that it is rate-limited to 5/hour, and that it is free and requires no account. It also describes the crawler behavior and the iterative verification nature. This goes well beyond basic expectations and gives the agent critical safety and side-effect information.

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?

Although the description is dense, every sentence adds unique value. It opens with the core purpose, then explains the process, outputs, usage loop, and important caveats (write action, rate limit, free). The use of backticks for field names and clear sections (what, how, constraints) makes it well-structured and skimmable. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description takes on the responsibility of explaining return values. It explicitly names `seoReport.headSnippet`, `setup_prompt`, and the ranked list of gaps, as well as the 0-10 score. It also covers behavioral constraints (rate limit, approval requirement). For a single-parameter tool, this is a complete and actionable description that leaves little ambiguity for an 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 tool has a single parameter (domain) with schema description coverage of 100%: 'Domain to audit, e.g. acme.com'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter syntax, constraints, or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, a 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource combination: 'Audit AND FIX a site for AI citation + SEO.' It enumerates the exact steps (crawls the domain, scores AI-readability 0-10, checks for v=AEO1 record) and outputs (headSnippet, setup_prompt, ranked list of gaps). This distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like check_aeo_record or check_serp by emphasizing the fix-oriented, comprehensive audit 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 usage context: 'Use it to build the fixes, apply them to the site, then CALL THIS AGAIN to verify the score improved.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool in an iterative audit/fix loop. It also mentions rate limiting and the write action, which helps the agent decide if this is the right tool given constraints. It does not explicitly call out alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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