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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It provides none: no mention of read-only/check nature, rate limits, required permissions, return formats, or side effects. It is only a list of topics.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a scannable colon-separated list. Every word contributes, but it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score.

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, no annotations, and a telegraphic description, the agent lacks essential context about what the tool returns or how it behaves. The description is too sparse for a tool with 14 siblings, leaving ambiguity about scope and expected results.

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?

The sole parameter url has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it. The description fails to clarify what URL should be supplied (e.g., homepage vs. page) or how the parameter relates to the listed signals, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the subject (local SEO signals) and lists concrete components (NAP consistency, LocalBusiness schema, GBP indicators), distinguishing it from sibling tools like seo_check_meta or seo_check_schema. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'check' for action, so it stops short of a full purpose statement.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely lists signals, implying a local SEO focus, but does not state scenarios (e.g., 'use for local business pages') or exclude other tools like seo_check_geo.

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