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

Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: billing is PER DIRECTORY in SEO add-on credits and may require a top-up. It does not explain what `refresh` triggers or whether results are cached, but the cost model disclosure is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the diagnostic rationale, then the parameter and billing notes. Dense and largely waste-free, though the duplicate-record explanation sentence is longer than strictly needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and the description still summarizes the report contents. The remaining gap is the undocumented `refresh`, `city`, and `location` semantics for a six-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%, so the description must compensate across six parameters. It does explain `directories` well (comma-separated domain list, default main TR set) and hints at `language` via 'Turkish', but `brand`, `city`, `location`, and especially `refresh` are left undocumented.

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 verb and resource (local directory / citation audit) and then enumerates the concrete outputs: separate records per directory, ratings, review counts, closed flags, and missing presence. The duplicate-record rationale makes it unambiguous how this differs from siblings like seo_reviews or seo_geo_citations.

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?

Clear context is given — it is an SEO Intelligence add-on focused on Turkish directories, and the duplicate-listing problem explains why an agent would reach for it. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not condition, so routing is left partly to inference.

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