seo_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return structure (score plus must_fix/should_fix/nice_to_have lists), the iterative fix-and-recheck pattern, and the scope ceiling. It does not state side effects (does it persist anything?) or failure behavior, but for a read-only scoring operation those are low-stakes gaps.

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?

Well structured and front-loaded: step context first, then the checklist, then return shape, then the parameter caveat, then the scope boundary. Every block earns its place, though the enumerated check list is somewhat long and could be tightened into a single clause.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the score and the three fix-tier lists. No annotations exist, and the description supplies workflow, scope, and the primary return contract. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only side-effect/failure detail that matters little for a scoring tool.

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, and it does for the key ambiguity: it explains that `headline` substitutes for a missing H1. It also implicitly ties `primary_keyword` and `meta_title`/`meta_description` to specific checks. However, five of seven parameters (slug, secondary_keywords, and format expectations for html_body/meta fields) receive no added meaning beyond their names.

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 states a specific verb (Score) and resource (finished body against on-page SEO rules), enumerates the exact checks performed, and explicitly scopes itself: 'On-page structure only - it says nothing about search volume, competition or backlinks.' This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like seo_keywords and build_schema.

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?

Provides explicit workflow context ('Step 10... before publishing'), a retry loop ('Fix everything in must_fix and call again'), and a clear exclusion boundary that names what the tool does not cover. The `headline` guidance explains exactly when to pass that parameter versus letting H1 checks fail.

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