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. While it mentions the tool provides 'advanced search analytics with sorting, filtering, and pagination,' it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness (beyond the data_state parameter), error conditions, or response format. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a tool with 14 parameters. The parameter documentation is organized but could be more front-loaded with critical usage information before the parameter details.

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 (14 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good coverage of the input parameters. However, with no annotations and a complex tool, it could benefit from more behavioral context about rate limits, authentication, and error handling. The parameter documentation is excellent, but operational guidance is lacking.

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 extensive parameter documentation with 14 parameters, including examples (e.g., 'sc-domain:example.com'), format specifications ('YYYY-MM-DD'), value ranges ('up to 25000'), and enumeration options. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter's purpose, format, and constraints, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 as 'Get advanced search analytics with sorting, filtering (including regex), and pagination.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('advanced search analytics'), and key capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_search_analytics' tool, which appears to be a simpler version.

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. There's no mention of when this advanced version is preferable to the simpler 'get_search_analytics' sibling, nor any prerequisites or constraints beyond the parameter documentation.

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