Site-level SEO check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by disclosing that 'each check reports pass/warn/fail with a concrete fix,' which tells the agent what kind of result to expect. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single dense sentence, but every clause adds a distinct check or behavior and the main action is front-loaded. It is arguably longer than necessary for a simple tool, but given the breadth of checks, the length is justified and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the output behavior (pass/warn/fail with concrete fixes) and enumerating all included checks. With idempotent and destructive hints covered by annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents both site_id and sample_size. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('site-wide SEO fundamentals'), then enumerates a concrete list of checks. The phrase 'site-wide' clearly distinguishes it from content-level or per-page SEO tools like get_seo_meta, so an agent can separate it from siblings.

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: this is for running a full site-level SEO review 'in one call.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose it over content-specific or meta-focused tools.

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