Title und Meta-Description prüfen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it loads a page over the network, requires no credentials, and returns a finding plus a shortening hint. It stops short of mentioning rate limits or error behavior, so it is not 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Lädt eine Seite...', with no wasted clauses. Each sentence carries distinct information: what is loaded and checked, the exact thresholds and return values, and that no credentials are needed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately sketches return values ('Befund und einen Kürzungshinweis'). Combined with 100% parameter coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool, though the exact format of the 'Befund' remains unspecified.

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?

There is one parameter (url) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description's length thresholds describe the check performed on the page content rather than the meaning of the url parameter, so it adds nothing beyond the structured field.

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+resource: loads a page, reads title and meta description, and checks lengths against specific thresholds (title max 60, meta description 70–155 characters). It is clearly about meta-length auditing rather than GSC data or indexing, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like gsc_url_pruefen or gsc_fast_seite_eins.

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?

Provides contextual guidance that the limits are stricter Bing limits that also suit Google, implying use for SEO meta checks, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is referenced, so the agent must infer the intended workflow.

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