Relevant pages

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description's warning that the operation 'may consume SEO Intellect account limits' adds useful behavioral context. However, the description does not disclose the task-based async behavior, such as returning a task_id, which is only visible in the schema. It adds some value but leaves the async/polling behavior to inference from schema descriptions.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, and the account-limit warning is a useful addition. The middle sentence about the upstream API tool is somewhat incidental but not harmful; overall, the description is concise and front-loaded.

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?

The schema explains the two invocation modes (start a task with keywords/url/se/region, or continue waiting with task_id) and has parameter descriptions for timeout and polling. Because there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. Still, the description omits usage guidance, limits, and any mention of the async task workflow, leaving the agent to infer context from schema structure alone.

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?

The schema provides detailed descriptions for key parameters such as timeout_ms, wait_for_result, poll_interval_ms, and task_id, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the input schema already carries high-coverage parameter documentation. The presence of well-documented polling and task-id parameters supports a solid baseline.

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: 'Find the most relevant site page for each keyword.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on positions, competitors, or page analysis. It does not explicitly name a sibling for comparison, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as positions, top_10, or site_scanner. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions. The only context is a mention of the upstream API and account limit consumption, which does not help decide when to invoke this tool.

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