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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deterministic rule-based scoring (same content = same score), no LLM involved, no guarantee of citation, no API key, per-IP rate limiting, and exactly what Citead retains (daily outcome counts, blocked-domain names for 45 days, IP counters).

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?

Well front-loaded: fetch action, then return values, then scoring explanation, then constraints. It is long, and the naturalness caveat is stated twice ('naturalness, which does not count in the score' and again 'Naturalness is returned as a criterion but does not count in the score'), which is minor waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still enumerates the criteria and fixes clearly. Combined with privacy, rate-limit, fetchability limits, and the sibling escape hatch, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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% and there is a single required parameter already documented as 'Public http(s) URL of the page to score.' The description reinforces that the URL must be public and fetchable but adds no format, length, or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource: 'Fetch a public web page and compute its GEO score with Citead.' It also distinguishes itself from its only sibling by stating that login-protected or JS-rendered pages should go to score_text instead, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition (public http(s) URL) and an explicit exclusion with the named alternative: pages behind a login or rendered only by JavaScript should use score_text with the page text. The 'free, no API key' note further clarifies the calling context.

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