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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the project is created EMPTY and needs more setup before seo.content.generate works, and mentions returns projectId, but doesn't detail permission requirements, error conditions, or reversibility of creation. For a creation tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap but still adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'creates' statement.

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 sentences with high information density. The most actionable context (when to call, what it returns) is front-loaded, and the follow-up instructions are concise. No wasted words.

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 a clear purpose, an output schema is absent but the description covers the return value, the empty-state caveat, and the required subsequent step. With three well-documented parameters, the description fills all critical gaps an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already described in the schema. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'name' indirectly via the example but adds no syntax or format details for 'domain' or 'template' that aren't already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Creates'), the resource ('programmatic-SEO project'), and a key output ('returns its projectId'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming seo.project.list and noting the dependency chain, which prevents confusion with other project-related tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Call this when seo.project.list comes back empty'. It also explains why (all other tools need a projectId) and what to do afterwards (call seo.project.get and read readinessNote), providing clear decision context.

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