analyze_geo_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the non-obvious return contract: a 0-100 AI readiness score, a letter grade, and a breakdown of issues affecting visibility across named engines. It implies a read-only analysis with no mutation, though it does not state permissions, cost, or whether repeated calls are cached/rate-limited.

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?

Roughly three compact sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, return shape, sibling routing, and next-step chaining. Front-loaded with the primary action and free of filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what comes back (score, grade, issue breakdown). Combined with the sibling routing and the follow-up call to get_geo_fixes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and use the result.

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 'domain' parameter is documented with accepted formats in the schema itself. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the GEO score for any existing website') and immediately scopes it to existing sites, explicitly naming make_site_geo_ready as the sibling for new/rebuilding sites. An agent can distinguish it from all listed siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('existing sites'), an explicit when-not/alternative ('new or rebuilding sites, use make_site_geo_ready instead'), and a follow-up chaining instruction ('call get_geo_fixes'). Routing is fully determined.

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