wp_audit_seo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful scoping (published content only) and examples of checks performed, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the result/report format looks like, whether anything is modified, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. The verb is front-loaded, the scope follows immediately, and the parenthetical gives concrete examples of what the audit inspects. Appropriate length for a no-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema audit tool, the description covers the core purpose, the scope of content examined, and the kinds of issues detected. The only gap is that without an output schema, the agent gets no hint about what the audit returns, but the overall simplicity of the tool limits the impact of that omission.

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 has 0 parameters, which gives a baseline of 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments, and the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage.

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 has a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('SEO audit'), and a clear scope ('across published content') with concrete examples of what it checks ('missing titles, descriptions'). This distinguishes it from per-page SEO tools like wp_get_page_seo and broader tools like wp_site_audit, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

The description implies usage: run this to get an SEO overview across all published content. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as wp_get_page_seo (single-page SEO) or wp_site_audit (whole-site audit), nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites.

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