get_seo_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world access, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that results are grouped per source with status/reason/thin_data metadata, and a prompt-injection caution telling the agent to treat retrieved rows as data rather than instructions — a real behavioral disclosure. It stops short of describing pagination or failure modes, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core capability in the first sentence, then devotes one short line each to site, sources, and the data-safety note. No filler or repetition, though the phrase "status, reason, and thin_data" is terse to the point of being cryptic for an unexplained field name.

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?

With only two optional parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: default semantics for both params, the breadth of the call, and a warning about untrusted returned text. Nothing material is absent for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: "site" is defined as a host or repo path with empty meaning the current folder (explaining the empty-string default), and "sources" is explained as a name filter that defaults to all when omitted. The only gap is the accepted format of source names, which the agent must guess.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get all SEO data of a site") plus a scope claim ("in 1 call"). An agent immediately knows this is a bulk retrieval tool. It does not contrast itself with the sibling list_sites, which is the only missing clarity element.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for the sources parameter ("Leave it out to get every source"), which effectively describes when to use the full-scan vs. narrowed mode. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_sites or any other discovery path, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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