seo_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is produced — a 0-100 score, letter grade, 16 weighted checks, prioritized fixes — but says nothing about credit cost, whether the page is fetched live, or latency, despite credits_balance/pricing being siblings.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that carries the score range, grading scale, check count and the payoff ('top fixes to apply first') with no filler. It is dense rather than padded, though the parenthetical stack is slightly nested.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the one thing an agent must get right — the accepted form of 'url' — plus any note on cost or scope of the audit.

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 0% for the single required 'url' parameter, and the description does not compensate. It never clarifies whether url must be a full page URL with scheme, or whether a domain root is acceptable and triggers a site-wide crawl — a distinction that materially changes the call.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('on-page SEO audit') with concrete output shape ('scored 0-100, A-F, 16 weighted checks, top fixes'). This clearly separates it from read_url or page_metadata, which surface raw page data rather than a scored audit. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling, compare_seo, explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative despite compare_seo sitting in the same family. An agent must infer from the word 'audit' that this is the single-page scoring tool rather than the comparison tool.

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