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

The description adds the BFS traversal method and the return of site-wide analysis, which are useful behavioral details. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, robots.txt handling, or limitations of the crawl.

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, direct sentence that immediately explains the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and parameter behavior. It also does not clarify differences from seo_crawl_status, making the overall context incomplete for a 2-parameter tool.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'url' or 'max_pages' parameters. Since the schema itself lacks descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely unclear.

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's function: crawling a website via BFS and performing SEO checks on every page. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are focused on individual checks (e.g., seo_check_meta) or status (seo_crawl_status), making it the only site-wide crawler.

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 implies usage for full-site SEO analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like seo_quick_audit or seo_deep_audit. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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