Recheck a webpage after SEO fixes

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, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the workflow context (checking whether fixes worked) but doesn't disclose details like rate limiting, refresh delay between scans, or whether results are cached. For a read-only tool with full annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate — adds some value but not deep behavioral detail.

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 compact sentence that packs in the action (rescan), scope (one live page), context (after WordPress or code fix), and output expectation (report whether issue codes are gone). Zero waste, no filler, front-loaded with the essential purpose. Ideal length.

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 2-param, read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this description is largely adequate. It captures the workflow context (rechecking after fixes) and expected behavior (verifying specific issues are resolved). One minor gap: it doesn't clarify whether rechecking is immediate or subject to indexing/caching delays, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable.

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% — both url and expected_fixed_issue_codes have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'specified issue codes' linking to the expected_fixed_issue_codes parameter and 'one live page' linking to url, reinforcing the schema. It doesn't add format or constraint details beyond schema, but with full coverage, baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'Rescan one live page' after a 'WordPress or code fix' and report whether 'specified issue codes are gone'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like seo_scan_page (initial scan) and seo_scan_pages (batch scan) by the 'recheck after fix' framing. Could be slightly more explicit about how it differs from seo_scan_page, but the purpose is clear.

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 is used after making fixes ('after a WordPress or code fix'), which signals the appropriate time to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for initial scanning use seo_scan_page, for batch scans use seo_scan_pages). The 'rescan after fixes' context gives reasonable guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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