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 covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the status lifecycle, the is_stale flag meaning the article body changed without re-verification, and the fact that it is 'Free and instant.' It does not describe pagination or exact return shape, but the output schema exists and the status semantics are well disclosed.

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: it front-loads the core purpose, then enumerates statuses, then report contents, then the staleness flag, then cost and the website_id condition. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the status lifecycle, staleness semantics, cost, and the conditional parameter. The only minor omission is an explicit note that the report is for the default-language version, which is actually included. 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 both parameters with source references (article_id from list_articles, website_id from get_account). The description adds the conditional rule for website_id ('when the account has several websites'), which is useful, but it does not add much beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reads the stored competitor-relative SEO analysis of an article (default-language version).' It clearly distinguishes this from running a new analysis (siblings run_advanced_seo_check, run_advanced_seo_check_for_content) by emphasizing 'stored' and 'status' states. The scope is precise and an agent can tell it apart from check_article_seo_score and check_seo_score.

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 gives explicit status-based guidance: 'pending or processing (poll again in a minute), failed (error included, credit refunded) or done.' It also states when to pass website_id: 'Pass website_id when the account has several websites (see get_account).' This is clear when-to-use guidance with a pointer to a sibling for context.

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