audit_site_seo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the cost of $0.15 USDC, which is not in annotations, and emphasizes that HTML must be supplied, clarifying the required input beyond the schema.

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 front-loads the main action and includes the cost. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool accepts up to 50 pages and has no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's role (audit HTML for problems) and a critical practical detail (cost). It could be more specific about the output format, but the annotations and schema fill in most safety and input details, making it reasonably complete for an AI agent.

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% — every parameter (url, html, text, title) is already described in the schema. The description only reinforces the html field, adding no new semantic detail about the optional text or title fields. This meets the baseline of 3 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 specifies the action (audit), the resource (supplied page HTML), and the scope (on-page, duplication, and internal-link problems). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like score_page_seo which focuses on scoring, and find_internal_link_opportunities which is about finding opportunities, not auditing existing problems.

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 clear context: it is for auditing HTML pages you supply, implying you need the HTML beforehand. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specific wording and the cost indicate a deliberate choice for bulk auditing. Missing exclusions prevent a 5.

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