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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that Sellular's side is read-only and the tool itself writes nothing, despite producing ready-to-apply fixes. It also describes the deliverables and their placement in the source tree, going beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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 purpose and output artifacts are front-loaded, followed by the agent workflow and the diagnosis alternative. Every sentence contributes specific information: examples of files, snippet types, source-tree placement, operational steps, and read-only clarification. No filler.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining deliverables and does so concretely by naming the file bodies and HTML snippets produced. It also explains where fixes belong and how to verify them, which is sufficient for a coding agent to invoke and use the 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%, and the single url parameter is already documented as accepting a domain or full URL. The description adds contextual framing about building fixes for a public site but does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb and resource: turning failing SEO/AI-discoverability checks into ready-to-apply fixes. It enumerates the exact artifact types produced (robots.txt, sitemap.xml, llms.txt, HTML head snippets) and distinguishes the tool from seo_audit_summary by framing that sibling as the diagnosis-only alternative.

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 gives an explicit workflow: write the files, insert snippets, replace TODOs, deploy, then re-run seo_audit_summary to verify. It also states when not to use it: 'Run seo_audit_summary first when you only want the diagnosis.' This clearly routes the agent between generation and auditing.

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