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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: priority ordering, return format (markdown), fallback behavior, and authentication requirement. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but these are not expected for a read-only tool that retrieves a pre-computed issue.

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 three sentences with front-loaded main purpose, clear priority, and explicit fallback. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and special cases. It could mention the single-item nature more explicitly, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's output.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions that match the tool's description. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'single most actionable SEO todo', and provides a clear priority order (recurrence-review > critical > warning > info; newest within a tier). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scan, which would return full scan results.

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 states when to use the tool (to get the next task) and what happens when nothing is pending. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare to siblings, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different in functionality.

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