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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool performs an audit and returns a plan, but does not explain how the audit is performed, whether it caches results, or what the plan output looks like beyond being prioritized. It also adds '[FREE]' which is unrelated to behavior. The lack of detail on side effects or output structure leaves a transparency gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the key purpose stated in the first sentence. The bilingual French translation adds redundancy but is not excessive. It stays under three sentences and each part contributes to understanding the tool's value.

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?

Despite the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for a simple tool with one parameter. It explains the core functionality (full audit, plan, prioritization) and the use case. The lack of output format details is acceptable because the output is conceptually simple and the description clearly signals a plan artifact.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (url) with a clear description ('The URL to audit and plan for'). The tool description adds context about what the URL is used for (audit + plan), but does not introduce new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 runs a full audit and produces a prioritized SEO action plan with estimated impact. It uses specific verbs ('run', 'get') and identifies the key differentiator ('what do I fix first?'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like seo_audit or seo_score that may only provide audit/scoring without a prioritized plan. The title is generic but the description fills the gap.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a prioritized action plan ('what do I fix first?'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. It implies the use case but lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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