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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost ($12 USD / 120 credits deducted from agent balance) and the crawl cap, but omits whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, expected duration, and failure/refund behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the core action, audit dimensions, page limit, and cost. There is no filler, and the most important operational constraint (cost) is included without disrupting clarity.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, and cost, but with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what the audit returns, how results are structured, or whether the operation is long-running. An agent can call it, but key operational expectations remain implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents domain, format, and max_pages. The description reinforces the 250-page maximum but adds no further syntax or guidance beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation at full 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?

States a specific verb and resource: executes a multi-page forensic crawl auditing SEO pillars, duplicate metadata, broken links, and redirect chains. The scope (up to 250 pages) is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as run_full_seo_audit or run_quick_seo_checkup.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'multi-page forensic crawl' and the 250-page limit, suggesting a deep/comprehensive audit. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over run_full_seo_audit, run_quick_seo_checkup, or run_spider_view_scan, and no when-not conditions are stated.

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