seo_mobile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a read-only analyzer by enumerating the checks it performs, but it does not describe output format, limitations, or how verdicts like PWA readiness are determined.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then concisely enumerates the specific checks, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 read-only analyzer with two simple, fully documented parameters, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The lack of any mention of return values or result structure is a minor gap since no output schema exists, but the listed checks help compensate.

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 parameters 'url' and 'html' are already documented clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about how those parameters should be used or their relationship to the mobile SEO analysis.

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 identifies the tool as analyzing mobile SEO and lists specific checks (viewport, touch targets, font sizes, content width, PWA readiness). It is specific enough to distinguish from a generic seo_analyze, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like seo_core_web_vitals.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The context of 'mobile SEO' is implicit, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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