seo_structured_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses concrete behaviors: checking required properties, supporting specific schema types, evaluating rich result eligibility, and flagging common mistakes. It does not describe output format or whether the URL is fetched, leaving some ambiguity, but the core validation behavior is clearly communicated.

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 compact and well-structured, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a concise bullet list of checks. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description gives enough to understand what the tool validates and how to invoke it, given the schema covers the two parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the validation result looks like, how errors are reported, or any limitations, so the context is not fully complete.

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%, and the schema already explains both parameters as 'URL of the page' and 'HTML content with JSON-LD.' The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate JSON-LD structured data (Schema.org).' It then lists concrete check categories and supported schema types, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_generate_schema, whose purpose is generation rather than validation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternatives, but the validation framing provides clear context for selecting this tool over generation-focused siblings. It lacks exclusion criteria, so it does not earn a 5.

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