seodata_run_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses expected runtime (~5–15 s), the shape of the result, the side effect that passing storefrontId persists the audit to storefront history, and the required scope (audit:run). It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but the mutation/auth profile is unusually well surfaced for an unannotated tool.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core action and output lead, followed by the side-effect condition and scope. The check list ('title, meta, h1, ...') is arguably padding but it usefully signals audit breadth, so waste is minimal.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: duration, return contents, persistence side effect, and required scope. Minor gaps remain around error handling and whether the audit runs against the live site versus cached data.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already documents for storefrontId ('saved to storefront audit history') and does not add format or edge-case detail for domain beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('SEO-аудит главной страницы домена') plus the concrete deliverable (score 0–100 + list of checks with named items). It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, all of which deal with articles, pages, positions, or search rather than running an audit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use and no alternatives named among the sibling tools. The conditional behavior for storefrontId and the 'Scope: audit:run' requirement give some operative context, but the agent must infer the triggering conditions.

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