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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by detailing what is reported (credits charged and refunded, errors, continuation eligibility) and the polling pattern. The closing 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotation rather than adding new information.

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?

Front-loads the core answer ('Where a project's research is') and packs the return contents into one dense clause before the usage and safety notes. Efficient, though the long parenthetical about credit estimate is slightly heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values itself — it enumerates stage, status, per-stage progress, credits, errors, and continuation state completely. Combined with the polling guidance and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the run_id default-to-latest behavior. The description's mention of the 'latest run' reinforces but does not extend the schema's meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States concretely what the tool returns — latest run's stage, status, per-stage progress, credits charged/refunded, errors, and continuation eligibility with credit estimate — and names the sibling (seo_continue_analysis) it is not. An agent can distinguish it from seo_start_research or seo_continue_analysis without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Poll this while a run is pending or running,' and routes the follow-up action to seo_continue_analysis to start a newer stage. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g., for completed projects), so it stops short of full alternative-routing coverage.

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