seo_audit_local

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 safety disclosure, and it delivers the most critical trait: 'Safe, read-only diagnostic evaluation. No file modifications.' It also frames the tool as diagnostic, implying no side effects. It could additionally disclose whether live network requests are made to the target or whether authentication is required, but the core safety-relevant behavior is explicitly covered.

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 tightly organized with labeled sections (USAGE GUIDELINES, BEHAVIORAL TRANSPARENCY) and bullet points. The opening sentence is dense but purposeful, listing the audit checks without padding. Every sentence and bullet earns its place; there is zero filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the selection-critical dimensions: what checks are performed, who should use it, exclusions with alternatives, and safety. The only notable gap is the absence of any hint about the return format — since no output schema exists, a brief note on what the audit report contains would make it fully complete. Minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% — the single required 'target' parameter already has a schema description ('Target live URL... or local file path to audit'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description focuses on audit scope rather than what values target should take, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Audits') and resource ('Local and Area SEO'), then enumerates concrete evaluation targets: LocalBusiness Schema.org JSON-LD, NAP consistency, click-to-call links, Google Maps embed signals, and doorway city page duplication. This level of specificity makes the tool clearly distinguishable from the other seo_audit_* siblings, whose names alone do not convey this local focus.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('local business websites, multi-location practices, and regional service providers'), when not to use it ('pure SaaS, digital-only, or non-geographic websites'), and names alternatives ('seo_audit_technical' or 'seo_audit_onpage'). This is the exact when/when-not/alternatives structure the rubric rewards, leaving nothing to inference.

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