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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant; 'free' is the one genuinely new behavioral fact. The description enumerates returned sections, which helps set expectations, but says nothing about pagination, freshness, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the audit contents, then the usage condition, then the parameter hint — a sensible priority order. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the redundant 'Read-only' slightly dilutes it.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing return shape, and it does so in detail. The behavioral safety profile is covered by annotations, so the remaining gaps (pagination, data freshness) are minor for a read-only single-parameter tool.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'Pass include_pages for the per-page detail' restates the schema's default-false behavior rather than adding format or depth information beyond it.

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 ('site-wide SEO audit') and then enumerates the concrete payload: issue groups with severity, weekly score trend, page performance, links/authority, day-0 ranks. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_visibility or get_competitors.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance ('Read before any SEO work of your own') and a downstream dependency ('the Feed seo_fix moves are minted from it'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming a competing sibling or a when-not-to-use condition.

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