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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't repeat those. It adds new behavioral context: the readiness criteria (needs both a field mapping and a content spec) and the cost ('FREE — this call costs nothing'). 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a usage directive, then the cost note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 a simple read-only getter with a single parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose, when to call it, and cost. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly that is missing.

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% and the parameter already has a rich description (cuid format, exact source from seo_project_list, and explicit disambiguation from slug/name). The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, so it stays at the baseline 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 verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('one project's settings') and an explicit condition ('whether it is configured enough to generate content'). It also names the sibling it is not (seo_content_generate) and explains why the readiness check matters, so an agent can instantly distinguish it from 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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this before seo_content_generate to avoid starting a run that will immediately fail.' This gives a concrete workflow position and a decision rule. It also notes the call is free, which is a practical selection factor.

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