seo_generate_clusters

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 async nature, expected duration (~1–2 min), return shape ({operationId, status}), the need to poll get_job, and possible terminal error states (failed/partially_failed/cancelled). This is excellent behavioral disclosure beyond what a schema would provide.

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 compact sentences, with the most important information ('Step 4', 'async cluster-generation step') front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what it does, how long it takes, what it returns, and what to do next. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple async trigger with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, timing, return value, polling process, error handling, and subsequent steps in the workflow. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke and monitor the operation correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter brandId, including a note that it defaults to the active brand. The description adds no extra parameter details, but per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high. No additional compensation is needed.

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: 'Groups related keywords into topic clusters that become candidate pillar topics.' It also identifies its place in the workflow ('Step 4 of the SEO / GEO flow'), which distinguishes it from other SEO tools like seo_create_cluster or seo_list_clusters.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: it is marked as 'Step 4' of the flow, and it gives clear post-conditions: poll get_job until completed, then call seo_list_clusters and seo_generate_roadmap. This tells the agent when to use it and what to do next, effectively differentiating it from alternative cluster-related tools.

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