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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context beyond this by explicitly calling out 'Safe, read-only comprehensive synthesis' and 'Generates Markdown and JSON reports without modifying files.' It doesn't disclose whether live network requests occur, but given the strong annotation coverage this is not a serious gap.

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 logical sections (overview, USAGE GUIDELINES, BEHAVIORAL TRANSPARENCY) and front-loads the core function. Bullet points keep the alternatives scannable)Skip. Slight redundancy between 'read-only' and 'without modifying files' costs it a perfect score.

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 no output schema, the description usefully lays out the key return artifacts (scores, grades, P0-P3 matrix, Markdown/JSON reports) and the explicit single-page scope. Combined with full schema coverage, this gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly, though more detail on input edge cases or authentication would be needed for a perfect score.

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%; the schema already fully documents 'target' as a live URL or local file path and 'projectPath' as optional framework/routing context. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Executes the comprehensive 8-dimension audit suite' and enumerates all eight dimensions. It also lists concrete outputs (0-100 scores, letter grades, P0-P3 action matrix, Markdown report), making the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinct from single-dimension siblings.

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?

A dedicated USAGE GUIDELINES section explicitly defines when to use the tool as the 'primary single-page audit tool' and when not to: multi-page crawls point to 'seo_audit_sitemap_multipage', and single-dimension needs point to dedicated 'seo_audit_*' tools. This is concrete, actionable routing guidance.

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