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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: price ($0.0497 via x402), charging only on success (422 returns charged:false), and a caveat that scores reflect technical checks only with no guarantee of ranking or citation. It does not fully detail the response shape or any rate limits, but the essential cost and safety profile is clear.

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 description is dense but front-loaded, leading with the core audit and output artifacts before pricing and caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description lists the generated artifacts (title/meta, canonical, Open Graph/Twitter, JSON-LD skeleton) and clarifies the scoring scope (technical checks only). It doesn't fully describe the response structure (e.g., severity fields, score breakdown), but it is reasonably complete for a complex audit tool.

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?

The schema is a permissive object with zero defined parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The description appropriately focuses on outputs and behavior rather than parameters, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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+resource ('On-page SEO + AEO audit') and enumerates what it returns (0-100 score, ~25 checks, generated title/meta, JSON-LD skeleton). It clearly distinguishes itself from a plain SEO audit by including AEO (AI-answer readiness), but it never names or contrasts with siblings like 'seo' or 'seo_compare', leaving some ambiguity about when this version is preferred.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'seo', 'seo_compare', or 'agent_ready_audit'. The only usage-adjacent context is the note that no charge occurs if the site blocks us or is unreachable, which is behavioral rather than routing guidance.

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