geo_site_audit

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool reads a URL and returns audit results, implying no side effects. It does not disclose rate limits or authentication needs, but the context (audit) suggests a safe read operation.

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?

Description is a single focused paragraph with a bullet-like list of outputs. It is efficient but could be more front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating details.

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 thoroughly explains what the tool returns (score, pillar breakdowns, pass/fail/warn, summary, fix prompt). It covers the key aspects a user needs to know.

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%, so the description adds minimal parameter detail. It mentions 'single page URL' and 'brand name for accuracy', but the schema already documents these. 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?

The description specifies a concrete action (audit), a resource (single page URL), and a domain (GEO). It lists 31 signals across 6 pillars and the return types, clearly distinguishing it from any potential sibling (none provided).

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 states when to use (for a GEO audit) but does not mention when not to use, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Slightly ambiguous for an agent needing to decide.

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