seo_keyword_density

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (top phrases with density percentages) and the optional target keyword placement check across specific locations (title, H1, meta description, first paragraph). However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, or what happens with dynamically rendered content.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficient. The second sentence adds the optional feature concisely. No wasted words, though slightly more structure (explicit differentiation from siblings) could have helped.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a 2-param tool, the description covers the operation reasonably. It explains output format and the optional keyword placement check across named locations. However, for an analysis tool it could disclose more about output granularity, limits on phrase frequency counts, or how the page is fetched (which could matter if the target is a JS-rendered page).

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 both parameters (url and target_keyword) are already documented. The description adds context about what 'url' analyzes (a page) and clarifies that target_keyword checks 'placement and density' in specific locations, which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'check placement and density for' phrasing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('keyword density and distribution across a page') and explicitly lists return values (top single-word, two-word, three-word phrases with density percentages). It distinguishes itself from sibling SEO tools (meta, heading, link, speed, sitemap) by focusing on keyword density.

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 states what the tool does and mentions the optional target keyword feature, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like seo_meta_analyze or seo_heading_check. Usage context is implied (analyze a page's keywords) rather than explicitly delimited with exclusions.

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