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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds concrete details: it is a read-only diagnostic probe that makes HTTP GET/HEAD requests to standard discovery endpoints and modifies no files. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it stops short of discussing response shapes or edge cases such as timeouts or redirects.

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 tightly organized with labeled sections, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler. The negative usage guidance earns its place because it prevents confusion with similarly named SEO sibling tools.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers what it probes (specific endpoints), what it returns at a high level (implementation blueprints), and when it should or should not be used. No output schema exists, but the description gives an agent enough behavioral context to invoke the tool 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%, so both parameters are already documented thoroughly. The description's mention of '11 programming languages' and 'copy-paste implementation blueprints' reinforces the targetLanguage parameter, but it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema's existing 'code blueprints' phrasing.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Tests'), a target resource ('live website or local endpoint'), and a precise objective ('Web MCP enablement'), then enumerates the exact checks performed. It also explicitly names sibling tools that it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from seo_audit_technical and seo_audit_onpage without opening their schemas.

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?

Provides a dedicated USAGE GUIDELINES section with a positive condition ('use to test if a web application exposes...') and an explicit negative condition with named alternatives ('Do NOT use for regular... use seo_audit_technical or seo_audit_onpage instead'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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