SEO Crawler MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns detailed results with affected URLs and context', which gives some behavioral insight about output format. However, it doesn't mention important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance/rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'execute' entails computationally. The description adds basic context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core purpose, second provides prerequisite guidance, third describes return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Excellent structure for quick comprehension.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers purpose, prerequisite, and return format at a high level, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error handling. For a query execution tool with no output schema, more detail about result structure would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'query' should be a name and mentions list_seo_queries for discovery (which is also in the schema). It doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Execute a specific SEO analysis query by name' with the resource being 'SEO analysis query'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning list_seo_queries for discovery, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from analyze_seo or run_seo_audit. The verb 'execute' is specific, though not as precise as it could be regarding what execution entails.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use list_seo_queries to see available queries' establishes a prerequisite. It implies usage for executing named queries rather than other SEO operations, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings like analyze_seo or run_seo_audit, which could cause confusion.

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