Fiche complète d'une page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description does not contradict these and adds the URL-search mode ('pageId = « url » avec ?url=') and the concrete set of returned data, including fixed history length and score types. This is meaningful behavior context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is a single information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the valuable response sections before giving the endpoint. There is no fluff, though the title-like opener repeats the tool title.

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 complex read tool with no output schema, the description gives a strong high-level contract: it names all major response areas, the special pageId/url mode, and the REST route. It doesn't describe low-level JSON structure or error behavior, but the annotation hints plus required parameters make it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds an important invocation detail: when pageId is set to the literal 'url', the tool searches by the url query parameter. This makes the relationship between pageId and url more actionable than the raw schema entries alone.

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 the resource ('Fiche complète d'une page') and enumerates the exact data blocks returned: SEO fields, categories, keyword, indexation, four-week scores, history, and Screaming Frog issues. This clearly distinguishes a full single-page detail fetch from sibling list/detail tools such as listPages or getScreamingFrogPage.

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 phrase 'Fiche complète d'une page' plus the field list gives an agent clear context for when to call this tool: whenever a complete page profile is needed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the GET endpoint and content scope make the usage situation unambiguous.

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