Schema audit and recommendations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the visible-page scope ('visible page'), implying it only analyzes rendered/visible content and not hidden or non-rendered pages. This is useful behavioral context that complements the 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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads all three actions (validate, list, assess) and enumerates the target schema types. No filler or redundancy. Could arguably note output behavior, but for its length it's efficient.

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 read-only, single-parameter audit tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the three core capabilities and the specific schema types evaluated. The absence of an output schema means return-format details aren't required. It's complete for a validation/recommendation tool of this complexity.

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% with a single 'url' parameter, which the schema already documents as 'Public webpage URL'. The description adds the 'visible page' qualification implying the URL must render content, but doesn't add format or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides. With full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Validate', 'list', 'assess') with a clear resource (JSON-LD syntax, existing schema types, markup fit). It explicitly enumerates the schema types evaluated (Article, BreadcrumbList, FAQPage, HowTo, Product, Review), distinguishing it from sibling aeo_* audit tools which focus on readability, entity coverage, or freshness rather than structured data.

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 this executes when checking schema/structured-data markup on a visible page, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like aeo_audit_page or aeo_multilang_schema_parity. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, though the narrow scope (schema types) is inferable from context.

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