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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the audit targets public URLs and failures are ordered by impact so the agent can recommend fixes. It stops short of describing rate limits, latency, or failure modes, but the added ordering and targeting details are meaningful.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence adds a distinct fact: what it does, what it returns and how it is ordered, and when to call it. 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?

For a one-parameter read-only audit with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly and interpret the result structure at a high level. It could say more about input requirements (e.g., accessibility of the URL) or typical runtime, but nothing critical 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 single parameter is already documented as a domain or full URL. The description adds only the qualifier that the URL must be public, which is a small but real semantic constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does most of the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a read-only SEO / AI-discoverability audit on a public URL. It also names the return shape (passing and failing checks sorted by impact), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_visibility_score or generate_seo_fixes without opening either 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 gives explicit sequencing: use after get_visibility_score to explain a low score. That is a clear condition and names an alternative, but it does not state when not to use it or mention other related siblings such as generate_seo_fixes.

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