ubersuggest_site_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive site audit' but lacks details on what that entails (e.g., crawl behavior, time to complete, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format). For a tool that likely performs resource-intensive crawling, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('perform comprehensive site audit') and specifies the domain ('for technical SEO issues'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a site audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like crawl scope, performance implications, or result format, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper tool invocation and result interpretation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'pages_limit') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'pages_limit' affects audit depth or what constitutes a valid 'url'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('perform') and resource ('site audit'), and specifies the domain ('technical SEO issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'domain_overview' or 'keyword_research' which might also involve site analysis, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific audit tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ubersuggest_domain_overview' or 'ubersuggest_keyword_research', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or ideal scenarios for a site audit versus other SEO analyses.

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