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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context: the payload contents and the honest caveat that scope/deliverables/timeline are included only 'where TESSA has published them,' signaling possible partial data.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement ('TESSA's SEO offer in structured form') and reasonably tight, though the trailing clause about the pricing page and service page is slightly list-like and could be trimmed 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?

With no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description's inventory of returned content is largely sufficient for an agent to call and interpret it. Minor gap: 'structured form' is not specified (e.g., which fields or format the agent should expect).

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 tool takes zero parameters and there is nothing to document, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted.

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+resource ('get TESSA's SEO offer in structured form') and enumerates the payload (what it is, starting prices, service page, booking link). It partially differentiates from siblings like get_pricing and get_services by scoping to SEO offers, but never names an alternative directly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when someone asks about TESSA's SEO, local SEO, national SEO or Generative Engine Optimization (GEO).' Clear usage context, but no when-not conditions and no named alternative (e.g., assess_seo or get_pricing) for adjacent queries.

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