GEO readiness score of a page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return format (0-100 score, signals found, concrete fixes) and the evaluation dimensions, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the criteria list is dense but relevant. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool evaluates and returns.

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 single-parameter scoring tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it evaluates, and what it returns. It lacks any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., page must be public), but given the read-only, idempotent nature, these are not critical. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define the sole parameter (url). It implies the URL via 'a page' and the tool name, but does not explicitly state that the url parameter is the page to score. This is a minor gap, but the implicit definition is clear enough for an agent.

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 states a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('how easily AI answer engines can extract and cite a page'), and enumerates concrete criteria (direct answer, FAQ schema, etc.), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like page_audit or structured_data_audit.

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 its use case—evaluating GEO readiness for AI engines—but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives like eeat_audit or ai_crawler_access. Clear context is present, though exclusions are absent.

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