seo_audit

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the paywall behavior (402 response, flat pricing, USDC on Base, MCP wallet needed) and return format (structured JSON with scores). It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but covers the major behavioral aspects.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and is concise (4-5 sentences). Every sentence adds value, including payment and output details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description explains the return format (JSON with per-category scores and issues). It also covers the payment flow and prerequisites, but does not enumerate all possible error states beyond 402.

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% for parameters, and the description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (POST), the optional nature of 'mode' (default both), payment details, and output structure. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 audits a web page for SEO and GEO, with specific verb 'Audit' and resource 'web page'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'headers_check' and 'robots_check' by being broader and including payment details.

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 explains the payment requirement (402 for unpaid) and the workflow, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'web_extract' or 'headers_check'. However, the payment and return format provide clear context.

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