Lint de contenido web contra SEO.md

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

Even with annotations declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds deep behavioral detail: hard vs. soft gates, 'términos prohibidos' handling in body vs. title/meta, density never requiring presence, forbidden_structure, JSON-LD validation, and error handling as violations. This goes far beyond the structured annotations.

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 long but every sentence carries substantive information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into validation checks, arguments, return value, and error behavior. No fluff or redundancy undermines its usefulness.

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, the description is remarkably complete: it covers return format ('PASS'/'FAIL' plus detailed per-page output), structuredContent, error conditions, and edge cases like false-positive prevention for forbidden terms in body. The existence of an output schema further reduces the burden, but the description is still thorough.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both config and pages. The description mostly restates this info (e.g., 'config (string): el bloque YAML de frontmatter', 'pages (array): páginas a validar') without adding significant new semantic detail 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Valida una o más páginas HTML contra los techos/pisos duros declarados en un SEO.md'. It names the resource (HTML pages, SEO.md) and distinguishes from siblings like lint_producthunt_post and lint_linkedin_content by targeting web content.

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: it is a read-only validation tool for HTML pages against SEO.md rules, and explicitly says 'No escribe contenido — solo verifica lo que ya se escribió'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it versus the sibling linters.

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