seooraclev2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool queries CommonCrawl and Open PageRank, implying a read-only external lookup. However, it does not mention response format, interpretation of results, or potential rate/access limitations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without any filler. Every word carries meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and data sources. It could slightly improve by noting the return shape (e.g., presence boolean and numeric score), but for a low-complexity check tool it is largely complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, including an example. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline score for schema-covered parameters. It does not clarify whether the parameter is required, though the schema indicates zero required parameters.

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 states a specific action ('check backlink presence') against a concrete resource ('CommonCrawl index') and a specific metric ('Open PageRank score'). This differentiates it from sibling SEO tools like keyword_research or seo_audit, which focus on other aspects.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when one of the sibling tools would be more appropriate. The context is implicitly 'when you need backlink data,' but no explicit direction is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes that the tool compares scores, but does not mention whether it performs live fetches, how performance is measured, any rate limits, or what the output contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining expected return values or operational details. It does not, leaving the agent without critical information about what the comparison yields or any side effects. This is a notable gap even for a simple two-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 100%, with each parameter clearly described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'domain' and 'competitor', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Compare') and resource ('SEO and performance scores of your domain vs a competitor'). It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like backlink_check or pagespeed by framing it as a direct comparison tool.

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 description implies usage for benchmarking against a competitor, making the intended context clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though siblings are quite distinct in function.

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

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

The description only says 'server status', which is minimal. It does not disclose what the client receives (e.g., status code, latency, health metrics) or whether any side effects exist. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this one-sentence description is insufficient to understand the tool's behavior beyond its name.

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 short sentence that is appropriately sized for a health-check tool. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 and no parameter schemas, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., output format, status fields). This lack of return-value information makes the description incomplete for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, making parameter semantics irrelevant. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as there is nothing to clarify.

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 'SEOOracle v2 server status' clearly identifies the tool as a health check for the SEOOracle server. It uses a specific verb-plus-resource structure and differentiates well from sibling SEO-focused tools that perform audits, keyword research, or page speed checks.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or typical scenarios. It simply states the function without further context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output types and the news-context source, providing moderate transparency. However, it does not explain result limits, whether the tool modifies anything, or the exact behavior when optional parameters are omitted.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and outputs. It contains zero filler and is immediately understandable.

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?

The tool is simple, with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core function and outputs, but it does not clarify what happens when the optional keyword is absent, nor specify the return format. This leaves some ambiguity for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive entries for both parameters (lang has a default and allowed values, keyword has an example). The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as performing keyword research, listing output types (related words, compound keywords, LSI keywords) and a specific source context (news). This differentiates it from siblings like competitor_seo or backlink_check. However, it lacks a clear verb such as 'generates' or 'retrieves,' making it slightly less explicit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies use for keyword discovery, but there are no explicit usage scenarios, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools for comparison.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys the tool's main function (returning scores) but omits details such as whether the tool relies on Google's API, potential rate limits, error behavior for invalid URLs, or whether it returns a single score per category or a full report. This is a moderate gap for a simple read-only 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that packs essential information without fluff. Every word contributes meaning by naming the service and the categories of scores. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not clarify whether the URL is required (schema lists no required fields), nor does it explain the difference between this tool and a more comprehensive seo_audit. This ambiguity could lead to mis-selection, so the description is not fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (url and strategy) with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the 100% schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as providing Google PageSpeed Insights scores for Performance, SEO, Accessibility, and Core Web Vitals. It uses a specific resource (PageSpeed Insights) and outcome (scores), which distinguishes it from broader SEO tools like seo_audit or health_check. However, it lacks an imperative verb like 'get' or 'run', making it slightly less explicit than ideal.

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 description implies usage: when you need PageSpeed scores, use this tool. It does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings such as seo_audit or health_check, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. Since the purpose is fairly self-evident, the usage guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool makes network requests, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. It only lists the audit scope, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the audit scope efficiently. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks details about the return value, how the audit is presented, or any behavioral context. While the scope is clear, the missing output/behavior information leaves the description somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'url' with an example, so the description does not need to add much. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool performs a 'Full on-page SEO audit' and enumerates specific elements (title, meta description, H1, alt texts, canonical, structured data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like backlink_check, pagespeed, and keyword_research, which target different SEO aspects.

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 description implies usage for on-page SEO audits but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. There is no direct guidance on when not to use this tool or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the action of checking title and description length and the word 'Preview' suggests a non-destructive simulation, but it does not state whether the tool fetches live data from the URL, how the preview is rendered, or any side effects or limitations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters, the description gives a clear overview of what the tool does. However, it lacks detail about the output (what the preview looks like) and the relationship between 'url' and the title/description parameters, which could leave an agent unsure about how to invoke it correctly. Nevertheless, the overall purpose is understandable and the schema fills most gaps.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions title and description length without explaining how the 'url' parameter factors into the preview or how the parameters interact.

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 uses the specific verb 'Preview' with the resource 'your page in Google search results', and adds the secondary function of checking title and description length. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pagespeed or keyword_research, which focus on different aspects of SEO.

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 description implies usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions under which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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