seo_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the dual-fetch behavior, what each view contains, and the diff. It also doesn't mention side effects, but as an audit it's implicitly read-only. The no_render parameter's effect is also disclosed. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or auth, but that's not critical for a read tool.

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 sentences, no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and details are packed efficiently. Every clause earns its place, covering behavior, outputs, and usage guidance.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lists the exact return fields (title, description, canonical, h1, word count, diff, meta). It explains the no-JS vs rendered distinction and the diff. It doesn't specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure) but enumerates enough for an agent to infer the shape. No critical missing information for calling it correctly.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interplay: it mentions the dual fetch and the diff, making the no_render parameter's role clearer in the audit context. It also clarifies which fields are returned, enriching understanding of 'url' and 'country' usage.

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 starts with 'Audit a URL's SEO in one call' and details exactly what it does: fetches twice (bot and rendered), returns both views, the diff, and bot-facing meta. It explicitly contrasts with manual scraping, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'scrape' tool.

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 final sentence, 'Use this instead of scraping manually when checking how a page indexes,' provides explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. While it doesn't list other tools by name, it sets a clear decision rule.

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