technical_seo_audit

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about conditional behavior: "If a URL is provided, also checks structured data (schema.org markup)" and clarifies the domain/URL scope. However, it does not disclose what a technical SEO audit entails or return format, so it only partially covers behavioral transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose, a conditional note, and a two-item argument list. No filler or redundancy. The structure is clear and front-loaded, though the Args section could be tightened slightly.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values or audit scope, but it does not. The config parameter remains unexplained, and there's no detail on what 'technical SEO audit' includes. The core behavior is covered, but these gaps make it incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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. It does document domain and url in the Args section with examples and purpose, but the third parameter 'config' is completely absent from both the schema and the description. Partial compensation limits the score to 3.

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 and resource: "Run a technical SEO audit on a domain or specific URL." This clearly distinguishes the tool's core purpose. The mention of checking structured data with a URL adds further specificity, though no sibling tool is explicitly named for differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives such as on_page_audit, site_crawl, or seo_domain_overview. The only conditional guidance is that providing a URL also checks structured data, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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