Overoptimization filter

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds one useful operational caveat: it may consume SEO Intellect account limits. It does not contradict the annotations, but it does not disclose return shape, failure behavior, or the async polling model beyond what the schema already embeds.

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 short and front-loaded; the first sentence states the core purpose. The 'Upstream API tool: filter' phrase is of marginal value but not bloated, and the account-limits warning is a useful, concise addition.

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 two-mode async tool with no output schema, this is thin: it never explains what the returned result looks like, that a task_id continuation mode exists, or how this tool relates to sibling risk tools. The schema covers parameters, but the description alone would not equip an agent to interpret the response or choose the correct entry mode.

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%, with task_id, wait_for_result, timeout_ms, and poll_interval_ms already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 opens with a specific verb ('Estimate') and a concrete object ('possible Yandex text-filter or overoptimization risk'), so an agent can infer this is a risk-assessment tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sqi or text_analyze, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no criterion for when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools, and it does not mention the two invocation modes (new request vs. task_id continuation). The only usage hint is the upstream API name 'filter', which is not actionable.

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