Detect the SEO plugin

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the required capability (edit_posts), that no arguments are taken, and the exact return contract including the writable flag and why AIOSEO is false (its own table is not written). It also explains the 'note' field's role in that case.

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 purpose and detection order are front-loaded, and the routing pointer to wp_seo_get sits at the end where it belongs. It is dense and slightly run-on in places, but no sentence is wasted.

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, yet the description fully specifies the returned object, its value space, and the semantics of the writable and note fields. Combined with the permission requirement, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this by stating it takes no arguments. There is nothing further to clarify about inputs.

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 precise verb (Detect) and resource (the active SEO plugin) and enumerates the three candidates in priority order, so the outcome is unambiguous. It is clearly separable from the sibling wp_seo_get, which it explicitly references for field retrieval.

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?

Gives clear conditions: detection runs in the order Yoast, Rank Math, AIOSEO, first match wins, and points to wp_seo_get when the agent actually wants per-post field values. It does not state when detection is unnecessary (e.g. the plugin is already known), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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