sagrank_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or destructive actions. It only describes the audit as a calculation and reporting activity, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it makes network requests, or if there are any rate limits or costs. There is no contradiction, but transparency is lacking.

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, moderately long sentence that packs a lot of information. It is clear and free of fluff, but the list of outputs is quite extensive and could be structured into bullet points for easier scanning. Overall, it is still concise and to the point.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and outputs comprehensively, listing all major audit components. It does not mention the output format or any limitations, but since there is no output schema, this is not strictly required. Given the complexity, the description is fairly complete, though it could benefit from a note about response structure.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself adequately explains 'url', 'psi_key', and 'estrategia'.

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 tool's purpose: it audits a website using the official SAG RANK algorithm. It enumerates the specific outputs (Global Score, Core Web Vitals, SEO On-Page, AEO, GEO, AI bot status, SPA/CSR detection, optimization priorities), making the functionality unambiguous. This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'compare' or 'generate_fixes'.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention scenarios such as 'use for a comprehensive audit' or 'use sagrank_compare for side-by-side comparisons'. The list of features implies a full audit, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.

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