seo_audit_advanced

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: 'rastreo acotado' hints at bounded crawling and 'APIs oficiales' implies external API calls, but there is no mention of auth/verification requirements for the GSC/Bing properties, rate limits, runtime, cost, or what the 'plan de acción con evidencia' actually contains.

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?

A single tight clause that front-loads the core capability and enumerates its three components; every word earns its place. It is concise but so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.

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?

For a six-parameter, multi-source audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits the prerequisites (verified GSC/Bing properties), the crawl bound semantics, and any hint of what is returned, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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 83% (above the 80% baseline), so the schema already documents baseUrl, dates, and site URLs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (it does not explain maxPages, the date window's effect, or the distinction between baseUrl and gscSiteUrl/bingSiteUrl), so baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource: an advanced SEO and GEO audit that uses official APIs, bounded crawling, and produces an action plan with evidence. The scope is intelligible, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling seo_audit_site, leaving the agent unable to tell the two audits apart.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative seo_audit_site (nor to the many bing_*/gsc_* siblings) even though the tool name is nearly identical to a sibling. The agent must infer selection entirely on its own.

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