Full On-Page SEO Audit

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds meaningful behavior: it fetches the page once, caps the score on noindex/robots blocks, returns specific errors for unreachable/non-HTML/HTTP-error URLs, and mentions that include_geo adds requests and check_broken_links is slower. These details give the agent a realistic model of side effects and failure modes.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: a one-sentence functional summary, followed by usage guidance, args, returns, an example, a critical note, and error conditions. Each section earns its place and no redundant fluff exists; it is appropriately sized for a complex audit tool.

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 (seven audit sections, four parameters, output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it covers inputs, outputs, edge-case behavior (noindex/robots), error conditions, and example invocation. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, and the description still provides a compact return structure overview.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters with defaults and descriptions. The description's Args section mostly restates this information with slightly shorter wording. It adds only a small increment via the usage example and confirms the default output format, but does not materially deepen parameter understanding 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('a page'), enumerating the seven weighted sections (meta tags, heading structure, content quality, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling single-purpose tools by positioning this as the comprehensive starting point for SEO questions.

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 explicitly says 'This is the tool to start with for any "how is this page doing for SEO?" question' and directs users to 'drill into the single-purpose tools afterwards for detail,' naming the alternative pattern. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and references the sibling tools without needing to enumerate them.

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