tooltrace_seo_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output shape (0-100 score, weighted checks, evidence, recommendations), and the word 'audit' conveys a non-destructive read operation. It stops short of describing failure behavior for unreachable URLs or cost escalation when render='auto' falls back to a browser, but those details partially exist in the schema.

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 with zero filler. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second compresses the output format and the full check list without redundancy or vague hedging. 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by summarizing the return value (score, evidence, recommendations). Combined with the well-documented parameter schema, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The remaining gaps — precise return structure and failure-mode notes — are minor for an audit 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% — url, render, wait_until, and wait_for_selector all have substantive schema descriptions, including credit costs, defaults, and conditional usage ('Only used with browser rendering'). The description adds nothing about parameters, which meets the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource — 'Run an SEO audit on a webpage' — and precisely enumerates the audited dimensions (metadata, headings, images, canonical signals, robots directives, social tags, schema, content length) plus the scoring output. The comprehensive audit scope implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower single-purpose siblings like tooltrace_metadata, tooltrace_links, and tooltrace_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 use case is implied: call this when you need a holistic, scored SEO audit. However, the description never states when to prefer this over the specialized siblings or when a lighter tool would suffice, and the siblings overlap heavily with the audit's own checks (metadata, links, schema). The render parameter in the schema adds cost/behavior context, but the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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