seo_heading_check

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. The description does disclose the tool performs a read-only audit and provides specific outputs including a visual hierarchy tree. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool requires network access, whether it returns scores/recommendations, rate limits, or how failures/timeouts are handled. For a read-only analysis tool the disclosure is decent but not rich.

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 tight sentence that packs the purpose, specific checks performed, and output artifact. Every clause earns its place; there is zero repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and enumerates the detection capabilities efficiently. The 90s word count is appropriate given the tool's complexity.

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 single-parameter, read-only audit tool, the description adequately covers purpose, detected issues, and output format. It doesn't have an output schema, so the description compensates by stating the visual hierarchy tree output. It could benefit from noting how users should interpret the results or whether a score is returned, but the tool is relatively simple and the provided coverage is sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'url' as the full URL of the page to audit. The description's behavioral detail about what the URL is used for (auditing heading hierarchy) adds context beyond the schema. With full schema coverage and a single simple parameter, the baseline of 3 applies and the description adds marginal value about the screening purpose, warranting a slightly higher score.

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 audits heading hierarchy (H1-H6) with a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('heading hierarchy of a page'). It enumerates the specific checks performed (missing H1, skipped levels, duplicates, empty headings) and the provided output (visual hierarchy tree). This is distinct from sibling SEO tools which handle meta, links, keywords, speed, and sitemaps.

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 clearly implies this is for heading structure auditing and is distinct from siblings like seo_meta_analyze and seo_link_check. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., page must be publicly accessible, needs HTML). The usage context is implied by the SEO tool family but not explicitly stated.

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