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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output format, the audit categories, and the cost ($0.005 USDC). It does not explicitly mention network access or auth, but as a read-only audit tool the described behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete output details and pricing, making it highly scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the input, the return value shape, the audit focus areas, and the cost. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on alternatives or edge cases, but the essentials are covered.

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 parameter 'url' is already well-documented. The description reinforces that the tool audits a URL and adds pricing context, but it provides no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 names the task ('Auditoría SEO on-page de una URL') and specifies what it produces: a 0-100 score, A-F grade, and prioritized issues. This is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like analyze_text or extract_webpage.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this when an on-page SEO audit of a URL is needed. However, it does not state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the URL requirement.

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