comprehensive_seo_audit

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output nature ('a single prioritized report with scores and action steps'), but for a composite tool that aggregates four separate audits it omits critical behaviors: runtime/performance cost, the fact that it performs multiple underlying calls, offline-vs-live execution requirements, and the implications of the optional PageSpeed API key (quota/cost). These gaps are significant for such a heavy tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded ('all-in-one comprehensive SEO audit'), which is good, and every component listed earns its place. However, it is a single dense run-on sentence that crams six component lists plus the output format into one clause, making it harder to parse than a structured two-sentence breakdown would be. Efficient but not optimally structured.

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?

This is a complex composite tool (5 parameters, 4 underlying audits, no annotations, no output schema), and the one-sentence description is insufficient. It touches on the return value ('prioritized report with scores and action steps') but leaves critical context unstated: how prioritization/scoring works, expected runtime, failure modes when the URL is not live, and whether html and url are alternatives or combinable. For a tool this heavy, the description must compensate for the missing annotations and output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters well ('Live web page URL to audit,' 'Raw HTML markup string to audit offline,' etc.). The description adds marginal linking context—Human Intent Keywords maps to targetKeyword and Lighthouse CLS maps to strategy—but does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Runs an all-in-one comprehensive SEO audit') and enumerates every component: On-Page metadata, Open Graph/Twitter, Image Alt, Lighthouse CLS & Core Web Vitals, Technical Schema/Headings, and Human Intent Keywords. This clearly differentiates it from the individual sibling tools (scan_onpage_seo, audit_lighthouse_cls_vitals, audit_technical_seo, extract_human_intent_keywords) as the combined superset.

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 'all-in-one' framing implies the use case: run this when you want the full combined audit in a single pass. However, the description never explicitly states when NOT to use it or names the sibling alternatives as the targeted option for single-dimension checks. The routing is implied by contrast with siblings rather than stated.

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