List SEO issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results come from the 'active dataset', which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the limit parameter, permissions, or what a returned issue record looks like. A safe read operation, but behavioral coverage is thin.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, then the type glossary. The long enumeration is justified because the input schema does not supply these definitions. Slightly dense, but every element earns its place.

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 annotations, so the description must stand alone. It covers scope, the optional filter, and all filter values, but it omits the shape/order of returned results. Adequate for a list tool, with one 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema by defining the meaning of every one of the 11 issue-type enum values (e.g. long-title = over 60 characters, missing-canonical = no canonical on an indexable page). That materially improves the agent's ability to pick the right filter.

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 and resource ('List the SEO issues') and scopes it to the active dataset, which an agent can parse immediately. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby list_broken_links or list_pages siblings, though the SEO-issue framing makes the boundary reasonably inferable.

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 'optionally one type only' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_broken_links for link-specific work. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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