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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, leaving the safety profile mostly inferred. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond that: the project is 'created EMPTY' and still needs a data source and content spec before seo_content_generate runs, the agent should fetch readinessNote afterward, and 'FREE — this call costs nothing' discloses billing behavior the annotations never cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to call it, what state it leaves the project in and the follow-up step, and cost. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and no sentence repeats schema or annotation content. Dense but not bloated.

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 7-parameter creation tool with a 100%-documented schema list hubs and an output schema present, the description covers the non-obvious operational context: empty-list trigger, projectId dependency of sibling tools, empty creation state, readinessNote follow-up, and cost. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. All seven parameters already carry rich descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'BYOK: the AI provider key... stored encrypted'). The description adds context about the projectId output and empty-state lifecycle but does not enhance meaning of any individual parameter, which is acceptable given the schema bears that burden.

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 ('Creates a new programmatic-SEO project') and names the concrete outcome ('returns its projectId'). The sentence 'every other tool needs a projectId and a new account has none' differentiates it from the sibling toolset by positioning it as the entry-point creation operation. No ambiguity with nearby siblings like seo_project_connect_ai or seo_project_get.

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 trigger condition: 'Call this when seo_project_list comes back empty.' It also explains the rationale ('every other tool needs a projectId') and prescribes the follow-up sequence ('call seo_project_get afterwards and read readinessNote'). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or naming alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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