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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive; the description corroborates this by clarifying that it only crawls and produces a plan, not edits. It also names the two output artifacts and the underlying engines (ai-seo + citation-intelligence), adding context beyond the annotations. It stops short of disclosing crawl duration or rate/scale considerations.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the action and the returned artifacts are front-loaded, and the plan-vs-edits caveat is placed where it will be read. Every clause earns its place.

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 a full schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description's burden is low, and it still names both output artifacts. It is essentially complete for correct invocation; only runtime/scale expectations for auditing up to 50 pages are left unaddressed.

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% with only three simple parameters, so the schema already explains domain, pages (with default and max), and include_info. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 concrete verb chain (crawl, audit, return) plus the exact deliverables: a portable agent-executable plan.json and a markdown checklist. The clarifying clause 'This produces an actionable PLAN, not direct edits' removes any ambiguity about the operation's nature, which matters since the name alone could imply mutation.

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 clearly frames the context of use ('whole-site AEO/GEO audit') and explicitly delimits the outcome as a plan rather than applied edits, which tells an agent when this tool is the right choice. There are no sibling tools to differentiate against, so the absence of named alternatives is not a gap, but no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given.

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