Two tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation, output schema specification, and error handling guidance. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (analyze_seo, compare_seo), which is good. However, descriptions are minimal (under 150 chars) and lack context on when to use each tool or what structure is returned. Input schemas are present but parameters lack descriptions. No output schema documented. Error handling returns plain text without recovery guidance. This is typical of early-stage community servers.

• Add output schema documentation to both tools. Example: 'Returns {overall_score: number 0-100, categories: {title: number, meta: number, ...}, issues: [{type: string, severity: string, message: string}], recommendations: [string]}'
• Expand parameter descriptions. For 'url': 'The full URL of the webpage to analyze (must start with http:// or https://, max 2048 chars). Example: https://example.com'
• Enhance tool descriptions to 150-250 chars. Include when to use (e.g., 'Use to audit a single page for SEO compliance'), what's returned (score + issues + recommendations), and any prerequisites (e.g., 'Page must be publicly accessible').
• Implement actionable error messages. Instead of 'Analysis failed: <error>', return 'Failed to fetch URL: connection timeout. Verify the URL is correct and publicly accessible, then retry.'
• Document result limits and timeout behavior. E.g., 'Analysis times out after 15 seconds. Large pages may be truncated. Returns top 20 issues by severity.'