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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond them with the rate limit (one per project per 15 minutes), expected latency, the fact that it saves/persists a result, and the preview/confirmToken workflow. It even qualifies the crawler-block signal as 'a sign of a block, not proof' and notes Agent Readiness is preconditions only, which is unusually candid about result interpretation.

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 action and scope are front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent needs. It is dense and runs long in a single block, but there is little fat to cut without losing behavioral detail.

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 still explains what a call returns (a preview without confirm, a saved audit result retrievable via get_geo_audit) and covers cost, latency, rate limits and scope. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns one extra point by clarifying that clientId/projectId resolve to the client's stored website rather than an arbitrary domain, and by restating the confirm-vs-preview branch that governs the call shape. It does not add anything about previewToken validity beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Run a fresh GEO Audit of the client's website now and save it') and enumerates the check categories covered, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_geo_audit, which returns the full result rather than triggering a run.

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?

Explicit scoping rules: it audits the website set on the client rather than an arbitrary domain, consumes none of the workspace's scan allowance, is limited to one audit per project per 15 minutes, and takes a minute or more. The preview-vs-run path is spelled out ('Without confirm:true it returns a preview') and the follow-up tool is named.

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