SEO Audit and AI Search Readiness

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly drops it. It does not state that the tool reads pages non-destructively, that it runs a remote job the caller blocks on (the waitSeconds parameter hints at this but the description never explains it), that there is a page-count cap, or what the returned scores look like.

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 no redundancy. It is tight, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a tool with three parameters and no output schema.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: an agent knows what is scored but not the shape of the result, whether the run is slow or blocking, or how sampling interacts with maxPages. The schema absorbs most of the parameter burden, which keeps this at an adequate rather than failing level.

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 parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a mild gloss by implying that a sitemap input leads to sampling a site rather than auditing every URL, but it adds no format or default details beyond the schema.

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 ("Score") plus the resource ("pages, or a site sampled from its sitemap") and names the two scoring dimensions ("on-page SEO and AI-search readiness"). That is enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool produces, though it never names a sibling or explicitly distinguishes itself from the sitemap-extraction 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants SEO/AI-readiness scoring. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing between passing explicit page URLs versus a homepage versus a sitemap URL, which is the main decision this tool forces.

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