SEO Audit

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: cached results return instantly, new URLs take 10-30s with automatic polling, and the return includes an overall score, category scores, and an AI summary. This is valuable performance and outcome information not present in the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second covers returns and performance, the third points to a sibling for more detail. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (score, category scores, AI summary), performance expectations, and the follow-up path using get_audit_results. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and to interpret the result.

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 fully describes the 'url' parameter with type, format, and an example. The description mentions 'any URL' but doesn't add additional semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a comprehensive SEO audit on any URL.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by mentioning 'Use get_audit_results with the returned hash for the full per-check breakdown,' clarifying its scope.

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 explicitly directs users to an alternative: 'Use get_audit_results with the returned hash for the full per-check breakdown,' providing clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate (summary audit) versus the sibling for detailed checks. This fulfills the alternative guidance criterion.

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