run_seo_test

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses an environmental dependency ('requires chrome-devtools-mcp to be running for DOM inspection'), which is real context beyond the schema. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it hits the live site, or any rate/timeout constraints.

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 purpose, scannable bulleted breakdown of analysis areas, then usage guidance and the prerequisite. Every element earns its place; only a small amount of redundancy between the bullet list and the summary line.

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 single-URL read-analysis tool with a fully described 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys scope, when to use it, and the runtime dependency. It lacks any hint of the result shape or how findings are returned, but that is a minor gap.

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 all three parameters (url, checkSocialTags, checkStructuredData) are already documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Perform SEO analysis on a web application') and enumerates exactly what domains are covered (meta tags, headings, content, technical SEO). This clearly separates it from run_visual_test/run_functional_test/run_performance_test/run_accessibility_test, though it never addresses overlap with run_full_test.

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?

'Use this tool when you need to evaluate a website's search engine optimization' gives a clear usage trigger, and the required chrome-devtools-mcp prerequisite is stated. However, there are no exclusions or explicit routing against the sibling tools (e.g. run_full_test), which likely also performs SEO checks.

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