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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds valuable call-time behavior by disclosing the £99 per-call cost and the compliance scope (EU AI Act Art. 50, schema.org). It does not detail side effects or whether an audit record is persisted, but it does not contradict 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 three short sentences with no filler: it front-loads the action and target, then gives the output shape, compliance scope, and cost. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of decision-relevant information.

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 3-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what is audited, what is returned, compliance constraints, and pricing. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings, but that gap is already captured under usage_guidelines, so invocation-level completeness is strong.

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%, and each parameter already has meaningful documentation, including the agent-card default path and the HTTPS requirement for url. The description's mention of 'schema.org, feed, agent-card' loosely maps to the parameters but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the schema-heavy 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Verify generative-engine optimization for a merchant URL' and enumerates the audited surfaces (schema.org, feed, agent-card). It also states the return type, a JSON GEO score with gaps, which clearly distinguishes it from generic verification tools in the sibling list.

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 implies when to use the tool by framing it as a merchant GEO audit and noting compliance and cost, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives such as run_abv_assessment or get_agent_visibility. There are no exclusions or 'use this instead when...' conditions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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