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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the audit scope but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes network requests, or what kind of report it produces; 'audit' weakly implies no mutation but leaves side effects implicit.

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?

One tight sentence with a front-loaded action and a scannable list of audit checks. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Adequate for selecting the tool's topic, but not complete: the description doesn't describe expected output/return values and doesn't disambiguate from closely related siblings (robots_and_sitemap, sitemap_multipage). The simple 2-parameter schema mitigates the gap.

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 covers both parameters fully with descriptions ('Target file path or live URL', 'Optional project root path for sitemap/robots discovery'), so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no new parameter detail beyond reinforcing that sitemaps/robots are involved.

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 uses a specific verb ('Performs') with a clear resource ('Technical SEO audit') and enumerates six concrete checks, so an agent can understand the audit scope. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as seo_audit_robots_and_sitemap or seo_audit_onpage, which may overlap on robots/sitemap topics.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the description names topics where this tool applies (canonical, robots, sitemaps, mixed content), suggesting 'use when these checks are needed.' It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, despite many sibling audit tools.

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