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

It discloses behavior beyond annotations: async execution, immediate tid return, and polling semantics. This is important operational context that annotations alone do not convey, and it matches the annotations' non-read-only, non-idempotent nature.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and result, then gives the necessary continuation steps.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation flow: what the tool returns, how to retrieve results, and the polling condition. The listed categories provide useful context for 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states it runs a GEO visibility test on a URL, with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the seven analyzed categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gvt_get_test_results or gvt_list_tests.

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 gives clear context: it is an async operation that returns a tid, and explicitly instructs the agent to pass that tid to gvt_get_test_results and poll until completion. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over gvt_batch_run_tests, but the flow is clear enough for correct use.

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