seo_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze' and 'Checks' imply a read-only inspection and the description names the exact areas inspected. However, it does not disclose whether the tool fetches the live page, whether it only processes the provided HTML, what the output structure looks like, or whether it returns pass/fail indicators, scores, or recommendations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose and the concrete checks it performs. Every element is useful and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description gives a reasonable overview of what the tool examines. But with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the form of the result or how the analysis is presented, which leaves some ambiguity for agent consumption.

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 both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond naming the analysis categories, which is acceptable but not additive.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze images for SEO and performance.' It then enumerates concrete checks (alt text, dimensions, formats, lazy loading, responsive images), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling SEO tools covering robots, structured data, internal links, and so on.

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: whenever an agent needs image-related SEO or performance analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternative tools such as seo_analyze, leaving some routing responsibility to the agent.

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