geo_quick_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it is a single-source search (5 results), costs $0.05 USDC, and returns a payment link if no token is provided. However, it does not mention what happens on error (e.g., invalid brand or token) or any rate limits, but the transparency is adequate for a simple read-oriented 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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and output, then directly contrast with the sibling tool. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and lacks an output schema, but the description lists the expected return elements (score, URLs, tips). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it yields. Minor gaps like error handling or result format details are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the paymentToken fallback behavior ('If omitted, the tool returns a payment link') and implicitly connecting the query to a brand name, but the schema already handles the basic semantics well.

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's function: a quick brand visibility snapshot across LLM-indexed sources, returning a score, top 3 citations, and 2 tips. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'audit_brand' by emphasizing it's a single-source search with limited results and a lower cost, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the agent when to use this tool ('quick snapshot') and when to use the sibling 'audit_brand' for full citations and recommendations. It also notes the payment requirement and provides the fallback behavior (returns payment link if token omitted), offering clear guidance on invocation context.

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