audit_brand

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

With no annotations, description discloses cost ($1.50 USDC), payment flow (Stripe session ID or payment link), data sources, and result count. Does not cover error handling or side effects, but the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the transparency is adequate.

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: first defines purpose and output, second specifies cost and alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 fully enumerates return components (score range, label, citations, status, recommendations). Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage and only two parameters, the description provides complete context for an agent to understand tool behavior and expected results.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'paymentToken' parameters. The tool description adds context about sources and results but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline score of 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 performs a 'Full brand visibility audit' specifying sources (Brave + Exa), number of results (10), and exact outputs (visibility score, label, citation URLs, index status, GEO recommendations). Distinct from sibling 'geo_quick_check' which is described as a quick snapshot.

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 mentions alternative 'geo_quick_check' for a cheaper quicker snapshot, providing clear context on when to use this full audit vs a lighter option. However, no additional guidance on when not to use this tool besides cost considerations.

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