Get SEO metadata

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already in annotations, the description adds significant behavioral detail beyond them: it detects the active plugin, exposes per-item overrides, compares them to rendered HTML, maps mismatches to caching or theme overrides, and describes the no-plugin fallback. This lets an agent predict side effects and interpret results.

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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the rest of the sentences earn their place with the plugin list, the rendered-page comparison, the mismatch explanation, and the no-plugin fallback. No content is wasted.

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?

At 6 params and deep complexity with no output schema, the description still communicates the main return items (title, description, focus keyword, canonical robots, Open Graph, schema types), the per-plugin/override/rendered comparison, and the no-plugin case. It notably doesn't detail the exact result structure or error scenarios, but given schema coverage and the annotations, this is decent coverage.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond what is in the schema, though it does reinforce the id/URL relationship and the intent of plugin detection. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the SEO metadata for one piece of content (by id or URL), normalized across...' and enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly differentiated from siblings: a reader vs. set_seo_meta, and a per-content SEO reader rather than a site-wide audit like seo_site_check.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—reading normalized SEO metadata, detecting the active plugin, and comparing stored values with the rendered head. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the fallback behavior ('Works without an SEO plugin too') is a viable usage hint.

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