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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses where quality warnings appear (top-level limitations, preserved in results view), per-family freshness thresholds (60/90/30 days, SERP 7 days), that captured_at is null for aggregate records, that monthly series hold at most 12 months and must not be filled or re-rounded, and that CPC/bid values are USD.

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 most decision-relevant content (submit vs get, scope rules) is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries operational detail. It is a dense wall of prose, however, and a few clauses such as "The results view preserves the same warnings" and "The service selects internal SEO capabilities" add little for the reader.

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 an 11-parameter, annotation-free tool with an output schema, the description covers the decision logic that matters — scope composition, opt-in gates, geo_score special case, freshness interpretation, and numeric handling — so an agent can call it correctly without guessing. Only the peripheral parameters remain unexplained, which the output schema and defaults largely absorb.

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 0%, and the description meaningfully documents only action, scope members (goal, keyword, domain/target, market, language, data_scopes), and analysis_id. The remaining parameters — view, dataset, refresh, request, page_size, analysis_ids, result_cursor, research_depth — are left entirely undefined in both schema and prose, so the compensation is partial.

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 opening sentence names both operations and the resource precisely: "Submit or retrieve one bounded SEO research analysis." The SEO resource plus the explicit submit/get duality makes it unmistakable against the sibling research_social_signals, and it immediately states the required inputs for each mode.

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 gives explicit routing rules: target-only scopes (backlink, ranked-keyword, traffic) are opt-in and must not be inferred from a generic SEO audit, website analysis, competitor analysis, or growth-opportunity request, with an instruction to ask for clarification when ambiguous. It also states a narrow special case (geo_score alone, omit keyword, fixed US/en) and that get requires only analysis_id.

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