seo_security_headers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key output behavior (returns a security grade A+ through F), which is useful. However, it does not mention that the analysis is based on the provided headers rather than fetching the URL, nor does it state any side-effect or permission expectations. The return-value disclosure helps, but other behavioral traits are left unstated.

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 single, tight sentence that states the action, the subject, and the return value. No filler or redundant wording exists, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, two well-described parameters, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is analyzed and what is returned. It could be improved by explicitly noting that the headers are supplied by the caller and that the tool does not perform a live crawl, but this is inferable from the schema.

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 both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing example header names, which helps clarify what 'security headers' refers to, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's existing 'URL of the page' and 'HTTP response headers' descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('security headers') and enumerates concrete examples (HTTPS, HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options). This makes the tool's function immediately understandable and distinguishes it from the sibling seo_generate_security_headers, which is about generation rather than 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 usage for assessing existing security headers, and the sibling tool names suggest a generation counterpart. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is clear but only implied, not directly stated.

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