content_seo_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is authentication context. However, it does not indicate whether the action is read-only or mutating, what its side effects are, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema is not referenced. This leaves significant behavioral 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?

The description is short and uses a clear structure with a brief sentence followed by a bullet list for arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by including a clearer purpose statement before the technical routing details.

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 complexity of the tool (domain agent action runner) and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the core purpose of the 'seo_research' action, leaving the agent without enough information to decide when to invoke this tool. The output schema is not mentioned, and the parameter descriptions are terse. The description fails to provide a complete picture for proper tool selection.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is helpful but minimal. It does not specify valid formats, examples, or constraints. The parameter semantics add some value but are not rich enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 that the tool runs the 'seo_research' action of the content domain agent, which gives a verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'seo_research' actually does (e.g., keyword research, content analysis), leaving the agent to infer the purpose from the tool name alone. Among sibling content tools, this is distinct in running that specific action, but the description lacks a clear definition of the action's outcome.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the mechanics of routing and parameters. There is no discussion of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent must rely solely on the tool name and sibling list to understand its specific role.

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