check_alerts

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discharges it well. It discloses that alerts are severity-rated, that position is an impression-weighted average rather than a rank-tracker figure, that deep positions rest on sparse data, and that absolute positions should be treated as directional. It also warns against unsupported speculation, giving the agent clear behavioral guardrails.

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 longer than average but well-structured with clearly labeled sections: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then IMPORTANT, PRESENTATION, and POSITION sections. Each section adds necessary operational context, though the presentation section is somewhat verbose.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to interpret the key metric, and how to present results. The main gap is the lack of an explicit response structure example, but the description provides enough context for an agent to call the tool and handle results appropriately.

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 already provides full descriptions and defaults for all four parameters (days, ctr_drop_threshold, click_drop_threshold, position_drop_threshold), so parameter information is complete. The tool description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, staying silent on how thresholds interact or are applied, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Check for SEO alerts,' and enumerates concrete alert categories: position drops, CTR collapses, click losses, and pages disappearing from search results. It also mentions severity-rated output for prioritization, making it clear how this tool differs from sibling tools like traffic_drops or ctr_opportunities.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as traffic_drops, ctr_opportunities, or content_decay. It provides operational instructions about how to handle data and present results, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance for tool selection.

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