On-page SEO check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis but never states that it makes no modifications, requires no authentication, or has side effects. The input constraint is mentioned, but behavioral expectations (e.g., safety, external calls) are absent.

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 sentences, zero fluff. The core list of checks is front-loaded, followed by constraints. Information density is high with no redundant wording.

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?

There is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns (score, report, list?). Since the tool has only two simple parameters, the description covers input well, but the absence of any statement about the return value leaves agents guessing. An agent cannot reliably use the output without more info.

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% (both html and focusKeyword have descriptions). The description adds minor context by enumerating SEO aspects and the 'one article' scope, but it doesn't go beyond what's already obvious from the parameter names and schema.

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?

Description clearly lists the specific checks (title, meta description, heading structure, etc.) performed on a single article's HTML. The verb 'check' is implied but the resource is explicit. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like qa_full_report, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Built for well-formed CMS article output (WordPress, Ghost, static sites), not adversarial markup' provides clear context on when to use (clean CMS HTML) and explicitly rules out one exclusion. However, it doesn't compare to siblings like readability_check or qa_full_report, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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