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 describes the action as 'Get,' implying a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. It mentions default values and limits (e.g., 'max: 500'), which adds some context, but lacks details on error handling or data freshness.

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 and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential details. It could be slightly more front-loaded with usage context, but overall, it's efficient and organized.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters in detail, which is crucial since the schema lacks descriptions. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it could improve by adding behavioral context like authentication needs.

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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'site_url' as the 'Exact GSC property URL,' 'days' as 'Number of days to look back,' 'dimensions' with examples, 'row_limit' with default and max, and 'search_type' with options. 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: 'Get search analytics data for a specific property.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'search analytics data,' making it distinct from siblings like 'get_advanced_search_analytics' or 'get_performance_overview.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_search_by_page_query' or 'compare_search_periods,' which may also involve search analytics.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_advanced_search_analytics' or 'get_search_by_page_query,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied through parameter details but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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