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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: the scoring is deterministic and 'No AI credits are spent' (a cost signal). It still says nothing about response shape beyond 'the problems it lists' or whether scoring is synchronous, so the add is useful but modest.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding. The core action is front-loaded, the cost caveat is brief, and the linter workflow is last. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description still tells the agent enough to call it correctly: required inputs, deterministic nature, no credit cost, and the iterate-until-80 loop. It could go further by describing the return (score plus issue list), but the essentials are present for a read-only scorer.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates partially by naming the core inputs (title, HTML, meta, keyphrase). However, six parameters (slug, language, project_id, content_type, featured_image_alt, has_featured_image) are undocumented in both schema and description, so it does not fully close the gap. Baseline for partial coverage plus partial compensation is a 3.

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 action ('Run ... SEO + readability + AEO scoring') on a specific resource ('ANY draft you pass') and enumerates the main inputs. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling score_article, which sounds like it could do the same thing for a stored article.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: use it as a linter, fix the listed problems, re-run until the score is ≥ 80, then publish. That is a strong use-case signal. It stops short of stating when to prefer it over score_article or listing prerequisites/exclusions.

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