Get SEO & AI Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned configuration (crawler policy, generated robots.txt, Markdown copies, feed settings), which partially compensates for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements or whether these settings are site-wide versus per-environment.

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 that lists the returned areas without padding. It is a long noun phrase with no verb, so it reads slightly more like a field inventory than a statement of action, but it wastes no words.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents what the call returns — crawler policy, robots.txt, Markdown copies, author/publisher defaults, feed settings. Combined with the readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No argument syntax is needed for a no-arg read.

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 names a specific resource — the site's search & AI settings — and enumerates its contents (AI crawler policy, robots.txt, structured-data defaults, feed settings). That is far more concrete than a restated title. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_site_config or update_seo_settings, which an agent must choose between.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious read/write pairing with update_seo_settings, nor any exclusion against get_site_config. The agent is left to infer that this is the read side of SEO configuration.

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