seo_structured_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool analyzes, extracts, validates, and recommends, which outlines the three main behavior classes, but it does not disclose whether the tool fetches the URL, whether it is read-only/non-destructive, or any rate limits or failure modes.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action and supported formats. Each clause adds value and is directly relevant to selection and invocation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers enough: it names the input, the standards supported, and exactly what the analysis produces. It could note that results are returned in some structured form, but the current content is adequate for correct invocation.

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 only parameter 'url' is already described as 'URL to analyze'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses specific verbs and a clear resource: 'Analyze structured data (JSON-LD, Microdata, RDFa)'. It further clarifies scope by naming its outputs: 'Extracts schema.org types, validates format, and provides recommendations for improving rich results.' This distinguishes it clearly from other SEO sibling tools like robots or meta analysis.

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 implies the tool is for auditing structured data on a given URL, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related SEO tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage to be inferred from the subject matter.

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