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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important behavior: it is a real and free audit, it respects a fair-use rate limit on SuperAudit's server, and it returns a global score, per-module detail, and prioritized problems. It does not state explicit side-effect/safety information, but an audit is clearly presented as a non-mutating analysis, and the rate-limit caveat is a useful limitation.

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 dense but not bloated: the first sentence delivers the core purpose and scope, followed by the output format, use cases, and rate limit. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place, though the first sentence is long.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and an operational constraint (rate limit). Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'url' and 'raw_json'. The description itself does not add parameter-specific detail; it only contextualizes the overall output. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific action and object: 'Ejecuta una auditoría real y gratuita de SuperAudit sobre una web', and enumerates the audit areas (SEO técnico, seguridad, RGPD/LSSI, Core Web Vitals, accesibilidad, GEO, WordPress/CVEs). It also states the concrete return value (score 0-100, module details, prioritized issues). With no sibling tools to disambiguate, the purpose is fully identifiable.

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 gives concrete use cases: '¿qué falla en la web de mi cliente?' or 'audita esta URL antes de contactarles'. This makes the intended invocation context clear. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool routing, but no siblings are provided, so this is appropriate.

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