seo_audit

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 only states that the tool performs analysis, with no mention of whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or output format. The word 'analysis' hints at a non-destructive operation, but this is insufficient for a complex tool with multiple analysis modes.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the core analysis types with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 analysis types, 5 parameters, and no output schema. The one-line description does not explain what each analysis type returns, how parameters like brandKeywords or minImpressions influence behavior, or what the output structure looks like. It is far too minimal for the tool's complexity, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes all five parameters with full coverage (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description essentially repeats the enum values of the 'type' parameter without adding deeper meaning, such as parameter dependencies (e.g., brandKeywords for brand_vs_nonbrand) or interpretation of thresholds. It adds no semantic value 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 identifies the tool as 'Specialized SEO intelligence analysis' and enumerates eight distinct analysis types (recommendations, quick wins, cannibalization, etc.), which clearly conveys its function and differentiates it from siblings like analytics_query or site_health_check. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'runs', 'performs'), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 list of analysis types implies when to use the tool (e.g., for quick wins or cannibalization), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The usage context is only implied, not clearly stated.

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