geo_score

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

No annotations are present, but the description fully discloses behavior: requires a valid URL, returns a 0-100 score, letter grade, detailed checks (robots.txt, llms.txt, Schema.org, Open Graph, AI bot access), and recommendations. No contradictions.

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 and a tip—every part is informative and earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the key usage instruction.

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?

Given one simple parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers input requirements, output structure, and practical usage (competitors). It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The only parameter is 'url' with no schema description (0% coverage). The description merely says 'Requires a valid URL,' which adds minimal extra meaning. For a simple string parameter this is adequate but not enriched.

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 clearly states the tool evaluates AI readiness/AI visibility/GEO score, with specific verbs like evaluate, audit, score, check, benchmark. It distinguishes from siblings (geo_check_robots, geo_inject, vibetags_generate) by focusing on overall scoring.

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 explicitly says 'ALWAYS use this tool when the user asks to evaluate, audit, score, check, or benchmark...' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also suggests using it on the user's domain and competitors, adding practical context.

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