check_draft_seo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers little. 'Local' usefully implies no external service call, but it does not say whether the tool mutates anything, what a failed or passing check looks like, or how results are surfaced. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the purpose leads. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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?

Six parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, so the agent has to infer both the check semantics and the response shape entirely from one sentence. The description should at minimum say what is checked and what the caller gets back; neither is present.

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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the schema supplies only names and types. The description refers generically to 'draft fields' without clarifying which of title, content, excerpt, seoTitle, coverImage, or seoDescription are evaluated, why title and content are required, or how seoTitle relates to title. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and object: running an SEO check against draft fields. It also anchors the activity to the publishing workflow ('before manual publishing'), which hints at its role among the draft tools. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like get_article_draft or update_article_draft, and never says what the check actually returns or validates.

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 'before manual publishing' implies the moment to invoke it, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on what to do if the check fails. Usage is suggested rather than stated.

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