Seo Geo Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns documentation and can be narrowed by topic, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as output formatting, size limits, or whether external data is fetched.

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 compact and organized: domain definition, return behavior, and usage guidance. The first sentence is somewhat long but contains useful disambiguation between SEO and GEO. Every sentence contributes, though the lead could be more action-forward.

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?

For a read-only reference tool with a required enum and one optional topic parameter, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and how to combine it with a related tool. It does not explain what 'full relevant guide docs' looks like in practice, but with no output schema and low complexity, the gap is minor.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the optional narrowing behavior for topic and gives domain examples, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the 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 opens by naming the resource ('SEO and GEO expertise for websites') and specifies the verb/resource relationship: it returns full relevant guide docs, optionally narrowed by topic. This clearly distinguishes it from audit-style siblings like audit_seo_geo and design guidance tools by framing itself as a reference/knowledge retrieval tool.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use when planning or auditing a site's discoverability' and even suggests pairing with get_design_roadmap('website') for the full process. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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