geo_quick_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format (score, URLs, tips), scope (single-source, 5 results), cost ($0.05), and payment behavior (token optional, returns link if omitted). It lacks details on error handling or data freshness, but for a quick check tool the main behavioral traits are covered well.

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?

The description is just two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds information (score, citations, tips, count, cost, alternative). No wasted words, easy to scan. Excellent conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what it returns, cost, payment flow, and alternative. It could mention data sourcing or rate limiting but the completeness is adequate for a quick check tool. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the paymentToken role (if omitted, returns payment link) and that query is for a brand check, reinforcing the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 provides a 'quick brand visibility snapshot across LLM-indexed sources', noting it returns a score, top 3 citation URLs, and 2 tips. It distinguishes from sibling audit_brand by specifying that tool returns full citations, LLM index status, and 6 recommendations, making the purpose and differentiation very clear.

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 tells when to use this tool (quick snapshot) vs. audit_brand (full analysis), including cost comparison. It also explains that omitting paymentToken returns a payment link, guiding the agent on how to handle payment. This provides clear context for usage and alternatives.

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