weekly_seo_report

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context by promising a "one-call" aggregation and enumerating the composite outputs, signaling it fans out over multiple data sources in a single invocation. It omits any statement of cost/latency or auth prerequisites.

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, zero waste. The capability statement is front-loaded, followed by the trigger and the routing alternatives in priority order.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the digest returns, and it routes to the correct sibling for narrower needs. Nothing essential to selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so both parameters (siteUrl, searchType) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Build a one-call weekly SEO digest") and enumerates the exact contents (traffic vs last week, growers, decliners, quick wins, sitemap health, recommendations). An agent can distinguish this composite report tool from siblings 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?

It states the trigger ("Use when the user asks for a weekly report or a regular status update") and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: seo_health_check for a letter grade, get_performance_summary for headline numbers only. This is explicit when-to-use and when-to-prefer-other guidance.

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