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. It discloses key behavioral traits: local execution, dependency requirements (Node.js, Chrome/Chromium), and CLI-based operation. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full behavior.

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 purpose statement, prerequisites, and parameter explanations in bullet points. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description provides good context for usage and parameters. It covers prerequisites and parameter meanings adequately, though it could mention the output schema's role. For a local audit tool, this is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all 3 parameters: url as 'Full page URL', form_factor as 'mobile or desktop', and categories as 'Comma-separated Lighthouse categories'. This provides clear usage context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify category options or URL format.

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 runs a Lighthouse CLI audit via npx, specifying it's a local audit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audit_live_site' by emphasizing the local execution requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all SEO/analytics siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 local Lighthouse audits requiring Node.js and Chrome/Chromium. It implicitly distinguishes from 'audit_live_site' (likely remote) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, missing full explicit guidance.

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