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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the keyword-in-slug check always reads as a reminder for pasted content, the tool is free and instant, and the conditional behavior when target_keyword or site_url are omitted. It doesn't describe rate limits or exact response format, but the output schema exists and the description summarizes the return structure.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then covering return values, use cases, conditional behavior, and sibling routing. It's a long paragraph but every sentence adds information. Slightly long, but justified given the tool's complexity and 7 parameters.

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 complete for a read-only scoring tool. It covers what checks are performed, what the return value includes, when to use it vs alternatives, conditional parameter behavior, and the website_id prerequisite. The output schema exists, so return values are further documented. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds some context beyond the schema: it explains the consequence of omitting target_keyword and site_url, and mentions website_id comes from get_account. However, it doesn't add much detail about the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool scores inline content with the same on-page SEO checks as BlogSEO articles, listing the specific checks performed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_article_seo_score (which likely scores articles stored in BlogSEO) by explicitly saying 'use get_article for articles stored in BlogSEO' and noting the content does not need to be in BlogSEO.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('use it on drafts, pages from other tools or competitor copy') and when not to ('use get_article for articles stored in BlogSEO'). It also provides conditional guidance: 'Without target_keyword the keyword checks are skipped; without site_url the link checks are not applicable' and 'Pass website_id when the account has several websites (see get_account).'

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