create_seo_content_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the critical behavioral detail of cost ('costs $0.10 USDC') and the 'evidence-tagged' output nature, which are not present in annotations. This is a valuable addition.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, inputs, and cost without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 simple input schema (3 params, all optional except keyword) and existing annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it creates, from what inputs, and the cost. It does not describe the output structure, but the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a 'content brief' make this acceptable. It is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 parameters are already well documented (e.g., site_pages for differentiation and linking, competitor_pages for evidence). The description only mentions 'keyword' and 'supplied competitor or site pages' without adding new details, so it contributes marginal value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('SEO content brief'), and clarifies the input sources ('from a keyword and supplied competitor or site pages'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like score_page_seo or audit_site_seo, which focus on analysis rather than brief generation.

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 its use case: generating a brief from a keyword and optionally supplied pages. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is clear but not comparative.

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