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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Safe, read-only diagnostic evaluation. No file modifications.' It adds the word 'diagnostic' which clarifies the nature of the operation, though it largely restates the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides a small additional context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency), front-loads the core function, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without being overly terse, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's role.

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 tool with one fully-documented parameter and rich annotations, the description covers its purpose, scope, and usage exclusions comprehensively. It does not need to describe return values since there is no output schema, and it provides enough behavioral context for an agent to decide correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'target', which is described as 'Target live URL (e.g. "https://example.com/chicago") or local file path to audit.' The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond this, but since the schema fully covers it, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 audits Local and Area SEO and enumerates specific elements it evaluates: LocalBusiness Schema.org JSON-LD, NAP consistency, click-to-call links, Google Maps embed signals, and doorway city page duplication. This gives a precise verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling audit tools by its local focus.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: use for local business websites, multi-location practices, and regional service providers, and explicitly excludes pure SaaS, digital-only, or non-geographic sites with named alternatives ('seo_audit_technical' or 'seo_audit_onpage'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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