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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating it is a 'Safe, read-only diagnostic evaluation' and 'No file modifications,' reinforcing the safety profile. It also specifies the audit scope, which is useful but not strictly necessary beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 audit tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough overview of the audit's scope, distinguishes it from related tools, and states its safety. Nothing essential for an agent to decide whether to invoke it is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'target', so the schema already fully documents its format. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not exceed the baseline expected 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?

The description clearly states the tool audits Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and lists specific evaluation areas (brand entities, Schema.org definitions, sameAs reconciliation, E-E-A-T credentials). It explicitly names sibling tools it is not, providing strong differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use to evaluate how LLM-based search engines comprehend brand identity and authority') and provides two clear exclusions with alternative tool names (seo_audit_local, seo_audit_aeo). This leaves no ambiguity for an agent.

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