seo_basics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the network-fetch behavior and the ownership/permission precondition, which is genuinely useful. But it omits operational traits such as redirect handling, robots.txt/rate-limit behavior, and what happens on timeout or non-HTML responses.

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 sentences, zero filler. The functional description is front-loaded and the safety constraint follows immediately after; every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does by naming the four reported artifacts. It stops short of covering failure modes or how the length/H1 checks are expressed, which leaves a minor gap for a network-fetching tool.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'url' and 'timeoutMs' including its default. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Fetch an HTML page') followed by an explicit enumeration of what it reports (title, meta description, canonical link, length/H1 checks). That output list cleanly separates it from siblings like security_headers and http_status without needing to consult either schema.

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 gives an authorization constraint ('Only use on sites you own or have explicit permission to test') and a scope limit ('Defensive/informational checks only'), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling tools (http_status, broken_links, security_headers), so alternative selection is left to inference.

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