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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavior: results are capped at 50 with totalActions and omitted indicating the true count, and consistency-check findings surface as technical items that clear only on a subsequent clean site check. It also flags that the paired update_action_status needs write access, which helps an agent plan around permission failures.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource and its equivalence to the dashboard Fix list come first, followed by fields, truncation semantics and lifecycle. The long parenthetical clauses make it slightly heavy, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return shape and does so: field list, status vocabulary, truncation fields, and how items get resolved. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation appears missing.

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 siteId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including the connected-app vs API-key distinction), and the description adds nothing about it. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, 3 is appropriate.

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 states a concrete resource (the ranked GEO action plan, identical to the dashboard Fix list) and enumerates the fields returned (taskKey, title, kind, priority, effort, status), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It stops short of naming which sibling it is not — get_opportunities and get_geo_audit are left for the agent to disambiguate.

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 useful workflow context: taskKey is the handle that update_action_status consumes, and that tool requires write access. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings such as get_opportunities or get_geo_audit, so selection is only implied.

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