audit_technical_seo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool audits but not how it behaves: whether it fetches the live URL, what happens if both url and html are provided, whether the operation is read-only, or how errors are handled. For an auditing tool this is a meaningful gap in transparency.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and uses a colon to introduce a compact, well-separated list of audit areas. There is no fluff, repetition, or wasted wording; every element contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 multi-faceted audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether url and html are mutually exclusive or complementary, or whether at least one of them is required despite the schema listing zero required parameters. This leaves an agent uncertain how to invoke 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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds some context by listing the audit categories but does not clarify the relationship between url and html, which one is preferred, or how optional content parameters are combined. 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 ('Audits') and a clear resource ('Technical SEO foundations'), then enumerates exactly what is checked: H1-H6 hierarchy, Schema.org JSON-LD, robots.txt, sitemap.xml, and text-to-HTML ratio. This concrete list distinguishes it from siblings like extract_human_intent_keywords or audit_lighthouse_cls_vitals without needing to open the 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?

The intended use is implied clearly: use this when you need a technical SEO foundation audit. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over comprehensive_seo_audit or scan_onpage_seo, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions. The domain is clear, but routing among overlapping siblings is left to inference.

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