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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral transparency adds 'No file modifications' and 'diagnostic evaluation' – specific context that reinforces but goes slightly beyond the annotation. It aligns without contradiction, so not a perfect 5 but above the baseline given the annotation coverage.

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 efficiently organized into three clear sections: purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and exclusions early.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description thoroughly explains what it audits (specific AEO elements), when to use it, and explicitly excludes other audit types. No output schema exists, but the evaluation criteria are enumerated, making the tool's function fully understandable.

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% for the single 'target' parameter, which already explains URL or file path. The description does not add parameter-specific details, so it relies on the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage, but no extra semantic value is provided by the description itself.

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 verb 'Audits' and the resource 'content for AEO', listing specific evaluation criteria (direct answer blocks, question-based subheadings, FAQ schema, citation readiness). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming seo_audit_geo and seo_audit_onpage in usage guidelines, making its scope unmistakable.

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 USAGE GUIDELINES section explicitly states when to use the tool (optimizing for conversational AI citations, direct answers, Perplexity) and provides two explicit 'Do NOT use' exclusions with alternative tool names (seo_audit_geo, seo_audit_onpage). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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