seo_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses cost ($0.006 USDC/call), p99 latency (12000ms), the model used, the no-charge-on-failure rule, and the grounding constraint ('from the page content only, no claims the page does not make'). These are materially useful traits an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and outputs, then parameters, then cost/latency. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; the output enumeration is somewhat list-like and long, but it substitutes for the missing output schema, so it is justified.

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 3-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers inputs, the shape of the return values, grounding behavior, failure handling, cost, and latency. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains that keyword is an optional search phrase to build around (with a concrete example) and that language defaults to the page language. That exceeds what the bare schema descriptions convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (reads a URL and returns SEO title/meta description plus generated improvements) and enumerates the exact output artifacts: current title, meta description with lengths, improved title capped at 60 chars, 140-155 char description, H1, 5-8 search phrases, and problems. That level of specificity cleanly separates it from generic siblings like page_summarize, page_extract, or site_audit.

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?

Usage is implied by the SEO focus and the optional keyword example ('windows Munich'), so an agent can infer intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., page_summarize for plain text, site_audit for broader audits). Minimum-viable context only.

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