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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive) by disclosing the async nature, the HTTP 202 response shape, that the crawl runs in the background, and the critical quota side effect (consumes one monthly audit, plan-limit error when spent). This is precisely the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 action, then the return value, then the quota warning and the confirm-first directive. Every sentence carries non-redundant information and the parenthetical clarifying the id is returned twice prevents a real confusion.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return shape and the background/poll model, and it surfaces the quota side effect that governs correct invocation. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 all five parameters including maxPages, renderJs, strategy, projectId, and startUrl are already documented in the schema. The description only restates startUrl as the entry point and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Starts) and resource (MisarSEO site crawl/audit) scoped to startUrl, and clearly differentiates from the sibling get_site_audit_status which is used to poll it. An agent can distinguish this from the many get_/list_ siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up alternative (poll with get_site_audit_status) and gives both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use rule: confirm with the user before starting and never start speculatively, tied to the quota cost. This is exactly the routing guidance a start-vs-poll decision needs.

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