seo_canonical_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state the core behavior (checks both header and link canonicals, detects conflicts/issues), but it does not disclose whether it follows redirects, what happens on invalid URLs, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavior is not misleading, but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the primary action and then the scope of validation. Every sentence contributes.

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 description is adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, but the absence of an output schema and of any description of the return format or error behavior leaves the agent to infer what 'detects conflicts and issues' actually returns.

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%, and the only parameter, url, is already described in the schema as 'URL to check'. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about accepted formats, normalization, or URL handling.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource (canonical URL configuration) and the specific action (check/validate), including two concrete validation targets: HTTP header and HTML link canonicals, and conflict detection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_robots_analyze by subject matter.

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 the tool is for checking canonical URL issues but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparison to seo_robots_analyze or other SEO tools.

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