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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it validates specific issues and computes score diffs, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies files, what happens on validation failure, or the response format. The lack of output schema and side-effect disclosure leaves some ambiguity.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Validates modified code files') and packs the key details (validation types and score calculation) with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 validation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it checks and what it computes, but it does not specify the return format or provide usage guidance relative to siblings. Given the absence of an output schema, the agent would benefit from more detail about what the tool returns, reducing completeness to a moderate level.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (filePath and beforeScores) with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'Before vs After score improvements' loosely aligns with beforeScores, but it adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Validates modified code files'), specifies the exact validation checks (duplicate meta tags, JSON-LD syntax errors), and mentions the score improvement calculation. This clearly distinguishes it from the audit tools (seo_audit_*) and the fix generator (seo_generate_code_fix) among its 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?

The phrase 'modified code files' implies the tool is used after code changes, and 'Before vs After score improvements' suggests it compares prior scores with new ones. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use it versus alternatives like seo_generate_code_fix or the audit tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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