Scan a live webpage for SEO issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about independent fetching ('does not use Bing's API') and lists what's checked. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like rate limits, timeouts for large pages, JS-rendered content handling, or what happens on fetch failure.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. The first sentence packs the action, scope, and enumerated checks efficiently. The second sentence provides critical differentiation in four words. Every word earns its place.

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 scanning tool with full annotation coverage and a single fully-documented parameter, the description is largely complete. The list of scanned dimensions (nine items) gives the agent a concrete sense of what the tool returns. Slight deduction for not covering edge-case behavior (e.g., non-200 status handling, authentication-required pages), but these are minor gaps for this tool type.

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%, so the url parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds minor context by specifying the URL must be 'public' and a 'webpage', slightly refining what kind of URL is acceptable. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema coverage; the description adds marginal value.

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 (fetch and scan), the resource (one public webpage), and enumerates the specific SEO dimensions checked (HTTP, title, meta description, H1, image alt, canonical, robots, language, JSON-LD). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it does not use Bing's API, and the singular 'page' distinguishes from seo_scan_pages.

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 states it scans 'one public webpage' (limiting scope) and explicitly notes it does not use Bing's API, which helps distinguish from Bing siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when this tool should NOT be used, such as seo_scan_pages for multiple pages or bing_get_crawl_issues for API-based data. The 'Independently fetch' phrasing implies it bypasses indexing APIs but doesn't fully draw the boundary.

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