Seo Api2 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'ASN Checker' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does, what it returns, whether it makes network calls, what permissions it requires, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how this tool behaves when invoked.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey any meaningful information about the tool's purpose or behavior. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide any useful guidance to an agent trying to understand when and how to use this tool.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description 'ASN Checker' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what ASN checking entails, what information is returned, or how this tool differs from other network-related checking tools in the server. The agent cannot determine what this tool does or when to use it based on this minimal description.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'ip' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'ASN Checker' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It provides no verb or resource specification, and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings that also perform various checking/analysis functions. A user or agent cannot determine what this tool actually accomplishes from this description.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools performing various checking functions (DNS checker, SSL checker, hosting checker, etc.), there's no indication of what specific problem this tool addresses or what distinguishes it from other checking tools in the server.

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