seo_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns scores and issues' and calls Core Web Vitals 'Performance estimates,' a useful caveat about precision. The read-only nature is implied by 'analyze,' though it does not discuss data-fetching behavior or limitations.

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 front-loaded with the main action and uses a scannable bullet list to convey the breadth of a comprehensive audit. There is minimal redundancy and each line communicates a distinct audit category or usage instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's list of returned 'scores and issues' categories is essential and sufficiently high-level. It does not describe the exact result shape or how html/robotsTxt interact with url, but the schema covers the parameters and the description is adequate for an aggregate audit tool.

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 documents all three parameters with high coverage (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description's bullet list adds context about what dimensions the analysis covers but does not add detail about the url, html, or robotsTxt parameters beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Run comprehensive SEO analysis on a webpage') and enumerates the audit areas (GEO, Core Web Vitals, structured data, etc.), which clearly distinguishes this aggregate audit tool from the specialized sibling tools. The phrase 'complete SEO audit' reinforces its role.

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 final line 'Use this for a complete SEO audit' gives an explicit when-to-use instruction. It does not name the specialized siblings as alternatives or list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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