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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly: it reveals that the call costs one MCP action immediately, consumes audit credits based on crawled pages, runs asynchronously in the background, and takes minutes. It also tells where status and results will surface, which is substantial behavioral context beyond what the schema could convey.

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 a single dense paragraph with no filler; the main purpose and paid/asynchronous caveat are front-loaded, and each clause contributes billing, timing, status, or result information.

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 one-parameter, asynchronous, paid action with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what is started, how long it takes, what it costs, and where to monitor status and retrieve results. Nothing critical an agent needs before invoking it appears to be 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain project_id at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter. The meaning of project_id is inferable from its name, but the definition adds no value beyond the raw integer type.

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 action verb ('Avvia') and a clear resource ('nuovo SEO Audit del progetto'), and it adds the internal-crawler/background context. This makes run_audit readily distinguishable from the get_audit_* retrieval siblings and the other run_* analysis tools.

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?

It clearly indicates that this tool starts a new audit and points to list_projects for status and get_audit_overview for results, which orients an agent to the correct follow-up tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus all rival run_* tools, but the start-vs-retrieve context is clear.

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