seo_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the requirement for an API key and credit consumption (60-200 credits per workflow), which is helpful for a workflow tool. However, it does not discuss side effects, error handling, rate limits, or what occurs upon credit insufficiency.

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 concise (two sentences plus a workflow list) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could benefit from bullet points for readability, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 description covers workflow names and credits, but fails to explain three of four parameters (domain, project_id, params). While an output schema exists, the lack of input guidance makes the tool harder to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only elaborates on the 'workflow' parameter by listing possible values and their credit costs. It does not explain 'domain', 'project_id', or 'params', leaving their semantics unclear despite the need for compensation.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Run a multi-step SEO workflow with report generation.' It lists three specific workflows (seo_performance_audit, indexing_diagnosis, quick_win_analysis) with credit costs, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools that perform single analyses instead of multi-step workflows.

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 mentions prerequisites (VISIBLYAI_API_KEY) and suggests using get_account_info to check balance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like individual analysis tools. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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