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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is free, takes about 10–20 seconds, stores nothing, and explains what is actually fetched. It doesn't describe rate limits or auth needs, but for a read-only check this is solidly above baseline.

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 packed but front-loaded: it begins with what is read and what is returned. It is one long sentence with a close-packed parenthetical, which is dense but not wasted; a small split into two sentences could improve scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does list the kind of results (SEO problems, Google snippet, fixes). It could more explicitly mention output format or response structure, but it covers the essentials for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the url parameter already has a description with an example. The tool description adds little parameter-specific information beyond implying a single URL target, so this is the expected baseline.

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 precisely states the verb+resource: it reads a home page plus sitemap pages and returns SEO problems with specific examples. An agent immediately understands what check_website_seo does, and the distinction from check_ai_crawler_access and get_full_audit_checkout is clear from the wording.

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?

It says it is free, fast (~10–20 seconds), and for a single website, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the sibling tools. The implied context is that it's a lightweight SEO check, but it doesn't say when to prefer check_ai_crawler_access or when a full audit/checkout is needed.

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