Get the AI-integration kit (AI installs it)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces this with 'CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free'. Beyond that, it discloses behavioral details not in annotations: what the returned kit contains, the conditional 'not needed for wp_rest' behavior, and the live-vs-rebuild implications of each renderMode, giving agents a clear picture of the tool's effects and limitations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and each subsequent sentence earns its place, but it is a dense single paragraph with multiple clauses that could be structured more cleanly. The final 'CAPABILITY' line is redundant with annotations, adding a minor inefficiency without affecting clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and what the agent should do with it (read files, adapt, write, tell user to deploy). It addresses parameter choices, deployment prerequisites, exclusions, and follow-up steps, making it complete enough for correct invocation in nearly any scenario.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial decision-making value: it explains the 'kind' default and when not to use it, elaborates on each renderMode's meaning and trade-offs (default/recommended, fastest, legacy), and clarifies when to pass 'stack' and what happens if omitted. This goes far beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('AutoSEO integration kit') while detailing its contents (endpoint contract, code templates, install instructions). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly framing it as the follow-up to autoseo_connect_site and not needed for wp_rest sites, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 offers explicit usage context: 'Call this right after autoseo_connect_site with kind "webhook"' and 'Not needed for kind "wp_rest" sites'. It also provides conditional guidance for 'stack' (omit for generic contract) and clear recommendations among renderMode options, plus a follow-up pointer to autoseo_verify_site, fully covering when and how to use the tool.

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