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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and it does well: it discloses the paid execution model ($0.02 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453) and the return shape ('Score + ranked fixes'). It omits rate limits/permissions, but the payment and output context is substantial value beyond any structured field.

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: pricing/payment lead, then the audit scope, then the return. Every clause carries information; it could be marginally better structured but there is no 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?

For a read-only, one-param audit with no output schema, the description covers payment model, the signal categories checked, and the return format (score + ranked fixes), which is enough for an agent to call it. Minor gap is the lack of explicit routing against SEO siblings.

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% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema (page URL or domain with example). The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource: a 'GEO audit' of whether AI assistants (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini) can cite a site. The AI-citability angle distinguishes it from the SEO siblings (seo_full_audit, seo_technical_audit), though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (audit a site for AI-search visibility) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against the many seo_* alternatives that overlap. An agent must infer the GEO-vs-SEO boundary itself.

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