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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the credit cost model (SEO add-on credits, bundle cheaper than separate calls, top-up location) and the conditional branch when a competitor domain is supplied. Output shape is also described (P0/P1/P2 plus raw sections). It does not explain the non-idempotent/destructive annotation semantics, which is a notable omission given destructiveHint=true on an 'audit' tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the scope and the chained components before the routing advice and cost note. Slightly long, and the 'top up in the panel → Add-ons' clause is more billing plug than agent guidance, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 high-complexity aggregate tool, it covers scope, chaining, routing, cost, and conditional behavior. Return values are covered by the output schema and partly restated. The main gap is the unexplained parameters and the unaddressed destructive/non-idempotent annotations.

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% for 6 params, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies 'competitor' (triggers the keyword gap); refresh, language, location, and homepage_url are left undocumented in both places.

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 composite action ('COMPREHENSIVE SEO + AEO + GEO audit') and enumerates exactly what it chains (technical audit, backlinks, ranked keywords, intent, AI-answer visibility, competitor gap). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the many seo_* siblings by positioning itself as the aggregation entry point.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this FIRST for any analyze/audit my SEO request; call the individual seo_* tools only to drill deeper.' This is the rare case where both the when and the when-not are stated with a named alternative family.

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