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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/non-open-world, yet the description adds substantial behavioral detail: what firewallAccess actually probes, that includePages is capped at 10, that the score measures readiness and is not a prediction of brand mentions, and that caveats live in scoreNote/howToRead. This is exactly the value-add expected beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (probe mechanics, page cap, scoring caveat, alternative tool). It is dense and field-name heavy, but little is expendable.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return contents — and it does, naming score/band, per-category results, insights, the sub-score, firewallAccess layer attribution, and where to read the caveats. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret it.

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 baseline is 3. The description clarifies includePages ('adds per-sampled-page results, capped at 10') beyond the schema wording, but says nothing about clientId vs. projectId selection that isn't already in the schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('The latest technical GEO Audit for a project's domain') and enumerates its contents (composite score, band, per-category results, insights, Agent Readiness). It explicitly separates itself from run_geo_audit, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

States the alternative clearly: 'run_geo_audit creates a new audit,' implying this tool reads the existing one. It doesn't spell out prerequisites (e.g., what happens when no audit exists yet) or exclusions, but the read-vs-create split is unambiguous.

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