Schema.org JSON-LD generieren

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 says 'Generiert' (generates) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only transformation, what the output format is, or whether it modifies any post or settings. No side effects, permissions, or return behavior are described.

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, making it concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the brevity sacrifices critical details (output, usage) and uses no structural elements like examples or conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool has moderate complexity (2 params, 1 enum) but no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain the return value (presumably JSON-LD markup), any prerequisites, or behavioral constraints. This leaves a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially given the presence of related sibling tools.

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 already describes both parameters: 'type' as a Schema.org type enum and 'data' as an object. The description adds no additional information about parameter usage, valid values, or relationships. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate for or enrich the schema.

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 'Generiert Schema.org Structured Data für verschiedene Typen' clearly states the action (generate) and resource (Schema.org structured data) with a scope (various types). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'seo_get_schema_from_post', which also deals with schema.org data, making the differentiation implied rather than explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'seo_get_schema_from_post' (which retrieves existing schema) or 'seo_analyze_content'. No context, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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