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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the audit entails. The agent has no information about whether this tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. This is inadequate.

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 very short (one sentence) with no unnecessary words. However, it is too minimal and could be expanded to cover key aspects. The lack of structure is a minor issue given the brevity, but it is not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. The agent has no understanding of what the audit returns, how the sync parameter affects execution, the role of language, or what 'local SEO audit' means in practice. This is far from sufficient for correct tool usage.

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 50%; only domain and location have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and the minimal schema descriptions. It does not explain the sync boolean or language parameter, nor provide context on acceptable formats or constraints. The tool description adds little value over the schema alone.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and resource 'local SEO audit' with domain and location as targets. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like agentseo_local_visibility_track, which may be a similar function. Still, the core purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agentseo_analyze_serp or agentseo_local_visibility_track. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when the audit is appropriate, or what distinguishes this from other tools. This is a significant gap.

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