wp_seo_site_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the audit's subject areas, but says nothing about whether it is read-only or triggers changes, how long a comprehensive audit takes, whether it is rate-limited or expensive, or what authentication it requires. For a site-wide audit these are material omissions.

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 the verb and scope stated immediately and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant or wasteful.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no description of the return value or audit duration, an agent cannot predict what this call produces or how costly it is. The scope areas are named but the operational picture for a heavyweight audit tool is incomplete.

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?

The single 'site' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the config-file source and the multi-site requirement. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 specific verb and resource ('Perform comprehensive SEO audit of the WordPress site') and scopes the work to technical, content, and performance analysis. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like wp_seo_analyze_content (single-content analysis) or wp_seo_get_live_data, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 run this versus wp_seo_analyze_content, wp_seo_test_integration, or wp_performance_stats. No prerequisites, no note on how often it should be invoked, and no indication of any site/auth conditions that affect usage.

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