get_seo_roadmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior for each detail level (stats only, slim item list, raw response), which goes beyond a simple 'view' statement. However, it omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects, though the read-only nature is implied by 'View'.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then efficiently enumerates the detail options. It is dense but not overly long, earning its place without redundancy. A slightly clearer separation between purpose and options would improve readability.

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 there is no output schema, the description does explain the return behavior for the detail parameter, which is critical. It does not mention the status filter or brandId in the description, but those are already well-documented in the input schema. The tool is a read-only view, so the absence of side-effect warnings is acceptable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful value by explicitly clarifying what each detail level returns ('stats only', 'slim item list (id+title+status+keyword)', 'raw response'), which goes beyond the schema's generic parameter descriptions and helps the agent select the appropriate verbosity.

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 ('View') and resource ('SEO / GEO content roadmap'), and lists key contents (blog topics, keywords, completion status). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like seo_list_roadmap or seo_roadmap_get, though the detail parameter behavior hints at unique capabilities.

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 context on when to use different detail levels, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as seo_roadmap_stats or seo_roadmap_get. The existence of sibling tools implies potential overlap, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.

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