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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 1-credit cost and the return shape (scores, categorized issues, pass lists), but says nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, permissions, rate limits, or failure handling.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and cost front-loaded and the return shape trailing. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover cost and rough return contents, which covers the essentials for a simple 2-parameter tool. It still omits how this differs from run_full_seo_audit and any runtime expectations, leaving gaps.

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 both domain and format are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., accepted URL forms or format trade-offs), so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Runs a fast technical SEO checkup on any website domain') and implies a lightweight counterpart to run_full_seo_audit via 'quick'. However, it never names the sibling it contrasts with, so the differentiation from run_full_seo_audit is left to inference.

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 only implied: the word 'fast' suggests a lightweight pre-check rather than the exhaustive 'full' audit, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must guess between this and run_full_seo_audit.

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