seo_audit_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Safe, read-only validation tool. No file modifications,' which is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the core purpose. It does not mention network behavior or return format, but the safety profile is clearly communicated.

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 well-organized with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly redundant—the first bullet under USAGE GUIDELINES largely restates the main description—but overall it is compact and every major section earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and safety adequately. There is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly describe the return shape, but it is still complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool and with what target.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'target' already has a clear description: 'Target live URL or local file path to inspect.' The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Extracts and validates Schema.org JSON-LD structured data' and enumerates the supported schema types. It clearly distinguishes this audit tool from the other seo_audit_* siblings by focusing on JSON-LD validation rather than content, performance, or technical audits.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use to inspect whether structured data is correctly embedded and free of JSON syntax or validation errors.' It also names the alternative tool for fixes: 'Do NOT use to apply schema fixes to files; use seo_generate_code_fix with the jsonLdSchema parameter instead.' This removes ambiguity about when to call this tool versus a sibling.

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