Audit SEO metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that analysis is performed 'locally' (no network calls), which is beyond annotations. However, it does not mention what happens with invalid HTML, output structure, or any edge cases. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Analyzes supplied HTML locally') and then lists the specific areas checked. There is no redundant phrasing, and every word contributes to the core purpose. It is exemplary in conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the key scope of analysis and the local execution context. It does not mention size limits (covered by schema maxLength) or potential limitations, but given the output schema and simple input, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema provides a full description of the single parameter (htmlContent: 'Raw HTML markup to inspect locally'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline for high coverage. It does not elaborate on format constraints or examples.

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 (Analyzes) and resource (supplied HTML) and enumerates the exact aspects examined (metadata, heading structure, viewport configuration, image alternatives, Open Graph fields). This is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like html.local or schema.markup, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to reference any sibling tool. An agent must infer from the title and parameter that this is for SEO auditing, but no explicit routing advice is given.

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