audit_brand

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the cost ($1.50 USDC), the return values, and the behavior when paymentToken is omitted (returns payment link). This is comprehensive for a read-only audit 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence covers purpose and output, second adds cost and alternative. Information density is high and well-organized.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all return components (visibility score, label, citations, index status, GEO recommendations). It also covers payment flow and alternative tool. Completeness is high.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the query parameter with examples and clarifying the paymentToken role. This justifies a higher score.

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 performs a 'Full brand visibility audit across LLM-indexed sources (Brave + Exa, 10 results).' It differentiates from sibling tool 'geo_quick_check' by specifying the scope and depth.

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?

Explicitly suggests using 'geo_quick_check' for a quick snapshot at lower cost, providing clear context for when to choose this tool. Could further state when not to use it (e.g., for non-LLM sources) but is adequate.

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