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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'Request'), has content-type restrictions ('Only works for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data'), and includes rate limit information ('Default quota: 200 requests/day'). It doesn't cover error handling or authentication needs, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important constraints and parameter details in just three sentences. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, and there's zero wasted text.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and minimal parameters, the description provides excellent coverage of the tool's purpose, constraints, and parameter meaning. It could potentially mention authentication requirements or error scenarios, but for a single-parameter tool with output schema, it's quite complete.

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 and only 1 parameter, the description adds crucial meaning by specifying that the 'url' parameter should be 'The full URL to request indexing for', which clarifies the expected format beyond what the bare schema provides. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Request Google to crawl and index a URL') and resource ('via the Indexing API'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'request_removal' or 'batch_request_indexing' by focusing on individual URL indexing requests rather than batch operations or removal requests.

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 explicit context on when to use it ('Only works for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data'), which helps differentiate from alternatives like 'submit_sitemap' or 'batch_request_indexing'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare directly with all sibling tools.

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