SEO Content-Analyse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it requires specific plugins (e.g., Yoast/RankMath), or any side effects. The description only lists analysis factors, leaving the agent without critical information about the tool's behavior.

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 is front-loaded with the action and includes relevant examples. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, return value, or appropriate usage. It does not mention what the result looks like, whether it modifies anything, or how it fits with sibling SEO tools. More context is needed for a complex analysis 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (postId, focusKeyword) are already described in the schema. The tool description adds some context by mentioning keyword density and readability, which relates to focusKeyword, but it does not meaningfully expand on parameter usage beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: 'Analysiert Content auf SEO-Faktoren' (analyzes content for SEO factors) and lists examples like keyword density and readability. It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling SEO tools like seo_bulk_analyze.

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 alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning exclusions or comparing to related tools such as ux_analyze_readability or seo_get_post_meta. Given the large sibling list, the lack of context on when this tool is preferred is a clear gap.

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