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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It also does not specify what 'score' means or if it changes any state. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the main action but does not provide additional details that would help the agent. While it is not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a middle score.

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 is extremely minimal for a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain what 'search metrics' are returned, what 'page-priority guidance' means, or any constraints on input values. The agent would lack critical information to use this tool effectively.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for any of the 7 parameters. The description only mentions 'keyword list' but does not explain parameters like sync, sort_by, language, location, location_code, or min_search_volume. The agent has no guidance on how to fill in these parameters beyond their names and types.

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 'Score a supplied keyword list with search metrics and page-priority guidance' clearly states the verb (Score), resource (keyword list), and output type (search metrics and page-priority guidance). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like agentseo_keyword_ideas_suggest (which generates ideas) and domain_ranked_keywords (which returns already ranked keywords).

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?

The description implies that the tool is for scoring an existing keyword list, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for scoring rather than generating keyword ideas, which is a key differentiator from siblings.

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