Search intent coverage

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the value of stating what it reports (missing expected intents), which clarifies the assessment behavior. It doesn't mention output format, but with robust annotations this is acceptable.

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?

A single, dense sentence that enumerates all six intents and states the gap-reporting behavior. No wasted words, though it could be slightly reorganized to front-load the purpose more clearly.

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 an analysis tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description plus schema is reasonably complete. The six intent types offer clear scope, and sibling tools provide broader context about where this audit fits. Absence of an output schema shifts some burden to the description, but the tool's gap-reporting nature is communicated. No descriptions for sibling tools, so usage differentiation is limited.

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 50%: the 'url' parameter is described as 'Public webpage URL' in the schema, while 'expected_intents' has no schema description. The description's list of six intent types effectively documents the valid values for expected_intents, compensating somewhat for the schema gap. However, it doesn't clarify whether expected_intents is used as a filter/output list or as a required checklist.

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 the verb 'detect' and resource 'intent signals', enumerating six specific intent types and explicitly reporting missing expected intents. This distinguishes it from other aeo_* audit tools, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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 implies it should be used to analyze a page's intent coverage, and the 'report any expected intents that are missing' phrasing clarifies its role as a gap analyzer. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like aeo_entity_coverage or aeo_audit_page, nor when not to use it.

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