seo_geo_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'returns the full relevant guides' without mentioning read-only nature, rate limits, or other behaviors. For a knowledge retrieval tool, this is minimal.

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 two sentences, efficient, and front-loads the core purpose. No redundant or extraneous 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 simple knowledge retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately defines the tool's purpose but lacks details on response format or how results are structured. It is minimally complete but could be more thorough.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with clear descriptions and an enum for scope. The description adds the context of 'full relevant guides' but does not provide additional semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool provides search-optimization expertise for websites, covering both classic SEO and GEO for AI answer engines. It uses specific verbs ('search-optimization expertise') and resources ('websites', 'guides') and is easily distinguishable from sibling design tools.

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?

While no explicit 'when to use' is given, the description makes it clear this is for SEO/GEO knowledge, which is distinct from the design-focused sibling tools. The context signals help, but an explicit alternative statement would improve clarity.

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