mcp-seo-audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (finds keywords in positions 5-20 with decent impressions) and the optimization context, but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens when limits are exceeded. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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 explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter meanings. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could benefit from mentioning data sources (Google Search Console) or typical use cases.

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 adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what each parameter means: 'site_url' as the exact GSC property URL, 'days' as days to look back, 'min_impressions' as minimum impressions to include, and 'row_limit' as max results. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: finding 'striking distance' keywords (queries ranking at positions 5-20 with decent impressions) for quick-win optimization targets. It specifies the exact resource (keywords/queries) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a specific ranking range rather than general analytics or other SEO functions.

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: for identifying optimization targets that could reach page 1 with small improvements. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., get_search_analytics for broader keyword analysis).

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