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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are cached for ten minutes, that the server performs the check against its own public pages, and that PageSpeed is intentionally omitted. These are concrete behavioral traits that go beyond the tool name and schema.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose and result contents, the second explains the network advantage, and the third covers caching and the PageSpeed exclusion. Every sentence adds unique value and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (sitemap count, HTTP status, llms.txt liveness, robots.txt groups), operational constraints, caching behavior, and the boundary versus PageSpeed. An agent has everything needed to select and call this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; it implicitly confirms the tool takes no input by stating it runs a public self-check on the server's own pages.

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 verb 'Run the site's public SEO health self-check' and specifies the resource (the site's SEO health) and the distinct result components (sitemap URL count, HTTP status, llms.txt liveness, robots.txt groups). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get-site-info, which would cover general site data rather than a technical SEO 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?

The description explicitly explains when this tool is useful: 'works from clients whose networks cannot reach printinglabs.com directly.' It also names an alternative and exclusion: PageSpeed is deliberately not included, and the agent is told to 'call the PageSpeed API separately' if a performance score is needed.

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