get_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes a health score, categorized issues, and recommendations, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, or how the tool handles errors or large datasets. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and output. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is partially complete. It outlines the output but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and sibling differentiation. Without annotations or an output schema, more context is needed for full agent understanding.

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 50%, with the domain parameter well-documented but the filters object only partially described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'filters' object's purpose or default behaviors. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get SEO issues for entire site') and resources ('site'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns a health score, categorized issues, and recommendations, unlike tools like crawl_site or get_page_seo which focus on different aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like get_page_seo (which might target individual pages) or get_gsc_insights (which could involve Google Search Console data), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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