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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description states that the tool reads the modified file, performs AST/regex checks, and makes no further modifications. This extra mechanistic detail confirms it is safe and explains how validation occurs without contradicting annotations.

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 one-sentence summary is front-loaded and every section adds useful context, but 'Safe, read-only file validation' and 'without making further modifications' are somewhat redundant with each other and the annotations. Still tight and scannable.

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 validation tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers invocation timing, exclusions, alternatives, and what is checked. It falls just short of fully describing the output/return format, which matters here because there is no output schema to fill that 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents filePath and the optional beforeScores map. The description reinforces the before/after scoring concept but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('validates') and resource ('modified source files'), enumerates the exact checks (syntax errors, duplicate meta/title tags, broken JSON-LD) and adds the score-delta behavior. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by framing validation as the follow-up to seo_generate_code_fix, not a standalone audit.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('immediately after generating or applying a code fix via seo_generate_code_fix') and when not to ('do NOT use as a standalone audit on unedited files'), naming seo_audit_onpage or seo_generate_full_audit as alternatives. No ambiguity remains about placement in the workflow.

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