Check on-page keyword placement

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: matching is plural/stem-tolerant, flags both thin usage and stuffing, returns emoji statuses, and accepts both array and string input. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't cover side effects (which are minimal for a read-only tool).

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 paragraph with clear, information-dense content. Every sentence adds value: placement locations, matching behavior, input flexibility, and output format. Slightly dense but efficient, no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, but the description compensates by listing what elements are checked, how input is handled, and the return format. It's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it doesn't describe the exact output structure (e.g., JSON shape) which would be helpful if no output schema exists.

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% (all params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how keywords are used (one report section per keyword), accepts a single string alternative, and describes the matching tolerance—adding value beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 analyzes where target keywords appear on a page and lists specific elements (title, URL, meta description, H1, H2, first 100 words, image alt text, keyword density). It distinguishes from siblings like seo_full_audit by focusing specifically on keyword placement, not a general SEO audit.

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 indicates when to use this tool: to analyze keyword placement on a single page. It provides details on input formats (array or single string) and matching behavior (plural/stem-tolerant). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, though the specialized scope implies usage.

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