SEOBolt free site audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond them: it discloses that the domain is sent to a third party (seobolt.app) and gives a concrete rate limit (~5 audits per 5 minutes per IP) plus failure-handling instructions. That is meaningful added context, though it omits anything about latency or what an error response looks like.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct payload: purpose, return shape, and usage/rate-limit. The core action is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return contents (overall score, seo and llm sub-scores, prioritized recommendations with fix text). Combined with the external-service disclosure and rate-limit rule, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle failure.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that a URL is reduced to its host. The description only restates 'public domain' and adds no format, normalization, or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Run SEOBolt's free anonymous audit for a public domain') and immediately contrasts scope with the sibling: broad overview here, drill down with seo_check. An agent can distinguish it from seo_check without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit ordering guidance ('Use it first ... then drill down with seo_check') names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also states the rate-limit condition and the required behavior on failure ('stop and tell the user instead of retrying'), leaving nothing to inference.

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