aaddyy_seo_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost (~35 credits, +$0.05 for backlinks) which is valuable, but does not describe runtime behavior, rate limits, whether it is read-only, or what the analyzer output looks like. The cost information is a genuine addition, but the behavioral profile is otherwise thin.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the core capability (10 analyzers, 60+ metrics) and then the optional backlinks and cost. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the analyzer categories and cost. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent cannot tell what form the analysis returns or whether it is safe to call repeatedly, leaving a completeness 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (url, includeBacklinks) are already documented in the schema, including the cost impact of includeBacklinks. The description adds the fact that backlinks analysis is optional and 'available', marginally reinforcing the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Comprehensive SEO analysis' and enumerates the analyzer categories (Meta tags, Content, Performance, Security, Mobile, Accessibility). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aaddyy_keyword_researcher or aaddyy_detector, though it does not explicitly name a competing SEO sibling.

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 when to use it (general SEO auditing) and notes an optional backlinks add-on, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites beyond 'valid URL'. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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