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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description goes well beyond that: it details the runnable scripts installed by scaffold_site, their exact filenames and purposes, the audit checks seo-check.mjs performs (missing meta, multiple H1, broken links, orphan pages, invalid JSON-LD, etc.), the optional --dup flag, and the hard rule about data that must never be invented. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 paragraph but is front-loaded with the core purpose and then flows into the playbook contents, scripts, and publishing instructions. Every sentence adds useful detail for a zero-parameter guide, though the length is substantial and could benefit from slightly tighter grouping of the script details.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the returned playbook covers, how the companion scripts work, how to run them, and how it complements site_design_guide. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and act on the result.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-level information because there are none to document, which is correct and complete for this tool.

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: 'Returns the SEO + JSON-LD playbook for sites built on the hosting server', then enumerates the playbook's contents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling site_design_guide ('design decides how the site looks, this decides whether it gets found'), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Names the complementary tool (site_design_guide) and the operational workflow: run seo-stamp.mjs and seo-check.mjs via site_run_command before publishing and fix until zero errors. It does not state when not to use this tool or list explicit exclusions, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than a full 5.

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