seo_audit_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: results are evidence-backed and 'errores parciales' (partial errors) are tolerated rather than fatal. It does not state that this is a read-only aggregation, what permissions/properties are required, or how many sources must be available for the audit to run.

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 dense sentence with no filler; the output characteristics are front-loaded ahead of the error-tolerance note. It is efficient, though it leans on a noun phrase rather than a leading action verb, which slightly weakens clarity.

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 composite audit tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return shape at a high level (evidence, prioritized findings, partial errors) but says nothing about scope, which sources are mandatory, or how results differ from seo_audit_advanced. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so all five parameters (url, startDate, endDate, gscSiteUrl, bingSiteUrl) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about defaults, precedence between url and the site-URL fields, or the date-range semantics, so the 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?

The description names the resource ('Bing y/o Search Console') and the output shape ('auditoría resumida ... con evidencia, hallazgos priorizados'), so an agent can tell it produces a summarized audit. However, it omits an explicit verb (does it generate, run, or return the audit?) and never names 'seo_audit_advanced', its closest sibling, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to pick this tool over the ~20 sibling tools, in particular seo_audit_advanced or the individual bing_*/gsc_* tools. The 'y/o' phrasing hints that either Bing or GSC may be selected, but no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is stated.

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