score_page_seo

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is deterministic, costs $0.01 USDC, and does not claim page authority. This gives the agent a clearer understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 immediately states the core purpose and key constraints. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or 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?

Given the simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its deterministic nature, its cost, and its boundary (no authority claim). It does not specify the exact return format, but the tool name and verb 'score' strongly imply a score output, and the lack of an output schema is mitigated by this.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (url and html) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'supplied page HTML', so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('page HTML') for on-page SEO checks. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is deterministic and does not claim page authority, which contrasts with tools like get_domain_authority.

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 when to use the tool (for on-page SEO checks) and when not to (when page authority is needed), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives.

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