rewrite_for_aeo

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only when fetching URL (single GET), zero network when given text, no side effects on source, delegation to the calling LLM via MCP sampling (no external API), and non-deterministic output due to model dependency.

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 (~150 words) and well-structured: purpose first, then behavioral details, usage guidance, and input constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's mechanism, side effects, usage context, and parameter behavior. However, it could briefly mention the output format (e.g., markdown) or the exact structure of BLUF/FAQ headings, but this is a minor gap.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), adding baseline. The description further clarifies that `respect_robots` is ignored when `text` is used, and explains `max_words` as a soft budget with default and range. It also adds context for `target_query` driving heading shape and BLUF wording, improving beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool rewrites content for Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), specifying exact enhancements (BLUF opening, FAQ structure, schema additions, question-shaped headings). It differentiates from sibling `rewrite_for_geo` by targeting direct-answer surfaces rather than generative engine optimization.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('optimizing content for direct-answer surfaces') and directs users to 'rewrite_for_geo' for alternative use cases. It also clarifies required inputs: either `url` or `text`, and `target_query` is required.

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