Text analyzer

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

The description adds a useful behavioral warning not present in annotations: the operation may consume SEO Intellect account limits. However, it does not disclose the asynchronous task/polling behavior or the two invocation modes (new task vs task_id continuation), leaving the agent to infer these from the schema.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no filler. The 'Upstream API tool' line adds provenance but little selection value, so it is slightly less useful than fully purposeful copy.

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 is complex—anyOf with two modes, async control parameters, and no output schema—yet the description explains only the top-level purpose and a cost warning. It doesn't describe how to start a new task versus continue waiting on a task_id, what the parameters mean, or what a successful result looks like, so an agent lacks enough context for confident invocation.

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 gives high-level meaning for the core inputs—text and competitor pages are analyzed against a keyword set—but it does not explain mode, variant, task_variant, url, or the task_id continuation path. Since the schema itself lacks descriptions for most of these fields, the description does not adequately 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 opens with a specific verb ('Analyze') and identifies the resource: text or competitor pages are analyzed against a keyword set. This conveys the core function and distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like 'positions' or 'top_10', though it does not explicitly name a competing sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 'semantic' or 'competitors'. The cost warning implies agents should be cautious, but it does not state alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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