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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the paid cost ($0.06 USDC/call), payment protocol (x402, eip155:8453), crawl depth (12 pages), and output shape (weighted score, 12 priority actions, module details). It stops short of stating whether the operation is read-only or describing payment preconditions, but the key cost and scope are clear.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the paid-call context and then states the audit scope, crawl depth, and outputs. Every clause carries relevant information without waste.

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 complex audit tool with no output schema, the description lists the major modules and return elements (score, priority actions, module details), which is enough for an agent to understand what to expect. It could be slightly more complete about output structure or payment flow, but the essential context is present.

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%, so the single URL parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for full coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: a full SEO + GEO audit in one call. It enumerates the covered areas (technical, keywords/content, internal links, local presence, AI visibility) and distinguishes itself from the individual module siblings by emphasizing the combined audit.

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 'Full SEO + GEO audit in one call' gives clear context for when to use this aggregate tool rather than individual module tools. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives such as seo_technical_audit or state when not to use this broader/paid audit.

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