seo_audit_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by defining the comparison semantics: an omitted URL or a failed rule never counts as a correction, which an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not cover output size or pagination.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the correction-semantics rule and the read-only guarantee. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the four result classes (nuevos, persistentes, resueltos, no comparables). Still missing is anything about the shape of the returned report or how the IDs and output format are chosen, which an agent needs before calling.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely doesn't. It implies that the two inputs are saved audit identifiers, but never distinguishes baselineId from currentId or explains how to obtain them, and the 'format' enum (json/markdown, default json) is not mentioned at all.

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 names a specific verb (compare) plus the resource (two saved audits from the same origin) and the axis of comparison (per rule and per URL). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from neighboring tools such as seo_audit_site, seo_audit_history or seo_audit_report, but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

'Dos auditorías guardadas del mismo origen' implies the prerequisite that both audits already exist and share an origin, and 'No modifica informes' signals a safe read. However, it never says when to use this tool instead of seo_audit_history or seo_audit_report, nor how the IDs are obtained.

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