mcp-seo-audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels by disclosing critical behavioral traits: automatic rate limiting handling, specific API limits (2000/day, 600/minute), and per-call limit (50 URLs). These are essential operational details not inferable from the input schema alone.

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 perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, behavioral details second, parameter explanations third. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool with complex behavior.

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 the tool's complexity (batch operations with rate limits), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavioral constraints, and parameter semantics sufficiently for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'site_url' as 'Exact GSC property URL' with an example, and 'urls' as 'List of URLs to inspect, one per line'. This adds crucial semantic context beyond the bare schema types.

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 specific action ('Inspect multiple URLs for indexing status') and resource ('URLs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'inspect_url' (singular) and 'batch_request_indexing' (different action). It precisely defines scope with 'multiple URLs' and 'indexing status'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (batch inspection of URLs for indexing status) and implicitly differentiates from 'inspect_url' by handling multiple URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond what's implied by the sibling list.

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