d3p_seo-aeo-auditor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention safety traits (e.g., read-only, destructive potential), rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The cost and endpoint are given but do not cover behavioral expectations for an AI agent.

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 relatively concise, with the main purpose front-loaded. It includes optional metadata (Category, Cost, Endpoint) that may be redundant if available elsewhere, but overall it is not overly verbose. A slight improvement would be removing metadata that duplicates tool attributes.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits explaining the actual output structure (e.g., the 6 categories and letter grades). The parameter handling (JSON string) could be clearer. The description is adequate but leaves gaps for a complex tool.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage and a single 'params' string expecting a JSON. The description clarifies that 'url' is required inside this JSON, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, this conflicts with the schema's default of '{}' and zero required parameters, potentially confusing the agent.

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 clearly states it audits URLs for SEO and AI discoverability, analyzing meta tags, schema markup, and performance with letter grades across 6 categories. The verb 'audits' and resource 'URLs' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings by focusing on SEO/AEO, unlike other d3p tools that handle search, pricing, or weather.

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 a 'Category: analysis' label but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. The cost is mentioned but does not serve as a usage guideline for selection.

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