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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the exact price (0.25 USD), the requirement for explicit wallet authorization, the absence of external research/outbound actions, and that the output is only a draft for human review. Because payments are inherently destructive side effects, this is consistent with destructiveHint=true rather than contradictory.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the action, then state constraints, deliverable, and price. Every sentence adds information; there is no repetition of the title or schema.

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 a paid, non-read-only tool with nested input and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input scope, behavioral limits, output nature, and financial side effects. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not spell out the key input fields or the optional signature/idempotency parameters, but the schema handles structure and the generic API fields are self-explanatory.

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%, so the description must supply parameter meaning, but it only loosely references 'business/site information' and the wallet/payment context. It does not explain what 'brief' vs 'source_text' vs 'audience' should contain, nor the role of result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature beyond generic wallet authorization.

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 identifies a specific action ('create a prioritized local SEO plan'), specifies the input basis ('supplied business/site information'), and distinguishes this from siblings by emphasizing 'local SEO' and 'no live ranking claims'. An agent can separate this from seo_audit, keyword_cluster, or generic plan tools without opening the schema.

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 clearly scopes usage to buyer-supplied information and explicitly rules out external research and outbound actions, telling an agent when not to expect live data or active publishing. It does not name an alternative sibling for cases needing live ranking analysis or external research, so it misses the explicit exclusion that would earn a 5.

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