seo_health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuine behavioral detail that the result is a graded score composed of traffic trend, CTR efficiency, position distribution, and sitemap health. It doesn't mention permissions, cost, or rate limits, but given the strong annotation coverage this extra context is solid rather than exceptional.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: purpose and output shape first, then usage, then sibling routing. No redundancy and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming the grade plus the four sub-score dimensions. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a complete schema, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents siteUrl (including the sc-domain: form) and the searchType enum. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (score) and resource (Search Console property) and even names the output shape: an A–F grade with four named sub-scores. An agent can distinguish this from grade-free siblings like get_performance_summary or weekly_seo_report without opening the schema.

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 ('user asks how healthy the site is in search or wants a grade') plus two named alternatives with the exact condition that selects each (weekly_seo_report for narrative, find_declining_content when traffic drop is already known). Nothing is left to inference.

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