seo_audit_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful safety context by stating it does not write a file or read arbitrary paths, but it does not describe error behavior, missing-id handling, or the exact return shape beyond 'el contenido'.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and format options. Every clause adds relevant information without unnecessary padding.

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 simple two-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the essential action, format choice, return content, and no-side-effect caveat. Minor gaps remain around missing-id behavior, but the annotations carry safety and idempotency context.

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 compensate. It mentions the 'id' lookup and the two accepted format values (json/markdown), but it does not explain the expected id format or add constraints beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action and resource: retrieve a saved report by id, with format json or markdown. It distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings like seo_audit_save, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as seo_audit_history or seo_audit_compare.

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 phrase 'informe guardado' implies the tool is used after a report has been saved, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like seo_audit_history or seo_audit_compare. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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