wp_seo_analyze_content

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

With no annotations, the description relies on the word 'analyze' to imply read-only behavior. It does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it disclose required permissions or rate limits. The description adequately suggests non-destructive analysis but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose, then lists key aspects efficiently. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy.

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 covers the tool's scope (readability, keywords, etc.) and parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, it lacks explanation of the output format or return value (no output schema), leaving the agent to guess what the analysis results look like. Additional context about pagination, limits, or typical results would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists analysis aspects (readability, keywords, structure, technical factors) which map to the analysisType enum, but it adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like site, postId, or focusKeywords. No parameter usage hints or constraints are included.

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 analyzes WordPress post content for SEO opportunities, specifying the verb 'analyze' and resource 'post content'. It lists concrete aspects (readability, keyword density, structure, technical factors), which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like site-wide audits or keyword research.

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 usage for single post SEO analysis, but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., site audit for site-wide issues, keyword research for broader terms). No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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