Plan AEO fixes for a live webpage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile well. The description adds the key behavioral trait that this is a planning-only tool (no fixes applied), which is a meaningful complement to the annotations. The phrase 'turn every detected issue into an exact fix plan' clarifies the tool produces a plan rather than executing changes.

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?

One concise, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Scan one live page and turn every detected issue into an exact fix plan') and adds valuable detail about fix categories. Zero filler words, no redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter, comprehensive safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It omits edge details like how many issues will be examined, timeout limits for large pages, or whether the plan output format is standardized - but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, the description is largely complete. The scoping qualifier 'one live page' appropriately sets expectations.

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 100% and there is only one parameter (url) with format 'uri' and a clear description already in the schema. The tool description references scanning 'one live page' which maps to the url parameter but adds no format validation details, protocol expectations, or URL constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 uses a specific verb 'Scan' with a clear resource ('one live page') and states the deliverable: 'turn every detected issue into an exact fix plan'. It enumerates the fix categories (WordPress content, SEO metadata, schema, theme, manual review), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like aeo_audit_page (which audits but doesn't plan fixes), aeo_prepare_wordpress_fixes (narrower scope), and aeo_autofix_page (applies fixes rather than planning them).

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 communicates a clear input context ('live page', 'scan') and a distinct output ('fix plan') that differentiates it from auditing-only siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for edge cases (e.g., using aeo_autofix_page if the user wants fixes applied directly, or aeo_audit_page if only analysis is needed).

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