Site scanner

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive. The description goes beyond this by warning that it 'may consume SEO Intellect account limits,' which is valuable quota/rate-limit context. It does not contradict any annotation, though it could further explain async or background behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the critical account-limits caveat. Every part 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?

The tool has a fairly complex anyOf schema supporting both new crawl and polling an existing task, and there is no output schema. The description only vaguely states 'technical SEO findings' without explaining the async/task_id flow or the shape of results. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description leaves output and workflow details implicit.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides rich descriptions for key parameters like timeout_ms, wait_for_result, poll_interval_ms, and task_id. With schema description coverage indicated at 100%, the baseline of 3 applies and the description does not need to compensate.

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 action and resource: 'Crawl a website and return technical SEO findings.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like site_age or wordstat, which target different, narrower functions. The mention of 'technical SEO findings' gives a concrete outcome.

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 implies when to use the tool—when a site-wide technical SEO audit is needed—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. The account-limits warning hints at cost-conscious use but stops short of providing direct guidance on when not to use this tool.

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