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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares analytics but doesn't describe what metrics are compared, the output format, whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence establishes the core function, and the Args section provides essential parameter details without redundancy. The information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is partially complete. The parameter semantics are well-covered, but behavioral aspects are lacking. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address when to use this tool versus siblings and provide more context about the comparison operation itself.

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 description provides explicit parameter documentation in the Args section, listing all 7 parameters with brief explanations. Since schema description coverage is 0% (titles only, no descriptions), the description fully compensates by adding semantic meaning to each parameter. It clarifies date formats, default values for dimensions and limit, and the exact nature of site_url. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Compare search analytics between two time periods.' This specifies the verb ('compare') and resource ('search analytics') with context about time periods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_search_analytics' or 'get_advanced_search_analytics' which might also retrieve search analytics data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to search analytics (get_search_analytics, get_advanced_search_analytics, get_search_by_page_query), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific comparison tool over other analytics retrieval tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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