get_seo_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description goes beyond this by specifying the nature of the retrieved data (capability, provenance, unavailable-metric disclosures), adding useful context about what callers can expect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 is front-loaded with the action ('Retrieve') and the resource, followed by the usage context. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the user what it does, what it returns (capability, provenance, unavailable-metric disclosures), and when to use it (before choosing a paid SEO tool). No additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. It provides no additional parameter info, but none is needed.

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 the specific verb 'retrieve' and clearly describes the resource: 'free capability, provenance, and unavailable-metric disclosures.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on domain authority, keyword opportunities, etc. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before choosing a paid SEO tool.' This gives clear usage context. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling tools serve different purposes, and the uniqueness of this tool is implied through its focus on capabilities rather than SEO metrics.

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