DataForSEO MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions getting 'detailed information on how well a particular page is optimized' but doesn't describe what that information includes, whether it performs active crawling/scraping, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool that likely makes external HTTP requests.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the lack of annotations.

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 tool that likely performs external HTTP requests and SEO analysis with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of data is returned, how comprehensive the analysis is, potential limitations, or error scenarios. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'enable_javascript' or 'custom_js' affect the analysis results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'get page-specific data with detailed information on how well a particular page is optimized for organic search.' It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'page-specific data' with the specific context of organic search optimization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'on_page_content_parsing' or 'on_page_lighthouse' which might have overlapping SEO analysis functions.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'on_page_content_parsing' or 'on_page_lighthouse' that might offer similar or complementary SEO analysis capabilities. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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