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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, it discloses the return payload (score out of 100, section scores, impact-ordered issues with fixes and affected pages, keyword coverage, generated JSON-LD), plus credit costs and the free-page exception. The interpretive note that 'not_checked' marks unverifiable checks rather than failures is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph is dense but purposeful, with the caveat and pricing placed after the core description. The long parenthetical dimension list is slightly heavy but every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values in detail, and it also covers cost, page-range limits, and how to interpret not_checked results. For a two-parameter read-only tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing apart from the profile_id source.

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 50%: include_passed is documented in the schema, but profile_id is undocumented anywhere, and the description only says 'for a profile' without indicating where a valid UUID comes from (presumably list_business_profiles). It does not add meaning beyond the schema for the required parameter.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Latest Website SEO Audit for a profile') and immediately scopes it as a 'rule-based local SEO audit of the website on its Google Business Profile', enumerating the audited dimensions. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_analysis_reports or request_industry_analysis without opening any 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?

It makes clear this is a retrieval of the *latest* audit and that 'running a new audit is done in GBPly', which steers the agent away from expecting this tool to launch a scan. It gives useful cost framing (10 credits per 20 pages, first 20 pages free) but stops short of naming a sibling tool to call for a fresh audit.

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