geo_report_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but discloses nothing about what the summary contains, whether it requires a prior local import, permissions, or freshness/state behavior — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no padding, which is good, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than achieved through sharpening — it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an opaque single-line description, the definition leaves too much unsaid for an agent to call it confidently. It never explains what constitutes the 'generative CSV' or what the returned summary includes.

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% and the single siteUrl parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

It states it returns a summary of a locally imported generative Google CSV, which is a specific resource, but the phrasing is opaque ('CSV generativo de Google importado localmente') and never names a clear action verb. An agent can roughly tell it apart from the gsc_*/bing_* siblings only by the 'geo_report' prefix.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many gsc_/bing_ tools. The words 'importado localmente' hint at a prerequisite (a prior local import must exist) but this is left implicit rather than stated.

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