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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that non-terminal status indicates an in-progress run and by detailing the report contents, which helps an agent interpret status and results correctly without contradicting the annotations.

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 a long, dense sentence, but every clause adds a meaningful detail about the report's contents. It front-loads the core purpose before enumerating sections, and the closing status note 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: run status, category scores, Core Web Vitals source, SERP aggregates, findings, and recommendations with content_gap nuance. For a read-only tool with one optional parameter, nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional workspaceId, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description only repeats the workspace scope and adds no format, source, or binding details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'latest SEO audit report for a workspace,' then enumerates the report's contents. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like seo_run_audit, seo_get_advisory, and seo_get_visibility without needing 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?

The phrase 'latest' and the note that non-terminal status means the run is still in progress give an agent clear context for when this read is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full sibling-routing guidance.

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