SEO Meta-Daten abrufen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the supported plugin formats (Yoast, RankMath, Standard), which is useful behavioral context beyond a generic 'get meta' statement. However, it does not mention what happens when no meta exists, whether it returns raw values or a formatted object, or any side effects (though likely none). This is minimal but adequate for a simple getter.

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, well-structured German sentence that immediately states the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word adds value by specifying the tool's scope and supported formats.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers its core purpose. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., an object with meta keys) and edge cases like missing meta or invalid postId. For a basic retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 documents the only parameter postId with 'Post/Page ID', covering 100% of the parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, such as accepted ranges or formats. Given the high schema coverage, this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the verb 'Ruft ab' (retrieves) and the resource ('SEO Meta-Tags eines Posts/einer Seite'), and scopes it to specific formats ('Yoast, RankMath, oder Standard'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_update_yoast_meta or seo_update_rankmath_meta, which perform updates rather than retrieval.

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 reading SEO meta tags but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as seo_analyze_content or seo_get_schema_from_post. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so it falls short of a 4.

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