seo_audit_site

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait: results can contain 'errores parciales' (partial errors), warning the agent that a response may be incomplete rather than a total failure. It omits auth/verification requirements and any statement about which sources are actually queried when only one property is supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is good. But it is undersized for a five-parameter, multi-source tool with seven closely related siblings—brevity here is under-specification rather than economy.

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?

There is no output schema, five parameters across two distinct data sources, and a dense sibling cluster to disambiguate. The description does not say how the two sources are combined, what 'hallazgos priorizados' contains, or what 'errores parciales' look like, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently versus seo_audit_advanced.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter carries its own Spanish description, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The tool description adds no semantics beyond that—it does not explain how url, gscSiteUrl and bingSiteUrl interact or what scope each defines. 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 verb+resource ('Auditoría ... de Bing y/o Search Console') and names output elements (evidencia, hallazgos priorizados, errores parciales). However, it never distinguishes itself from the crowded seo_audit_* family (seo_audit_advanced, seo_audit_report, geo_report_summary); 'resumida' hints at a lighter variant of seo_audit_advanced but leaves the agent to infer it.

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?

No indication of when to choose this over seo_audit_advanced, seo_audit_report, or the individual bing_*/gsc_* tools. Nothing says whether a verified property is a prerequisite or what happens if only one source is configured.

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