GEO: metriche della pagina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: it reads only initial HTML without JavaScript execution, which explains why results may differ from a rendered page, and it discloses external data sources (RDAP/WHOIS for domain age) implying extra network calls and possible latency. It says nothing about rate limits, auth, or cost.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition before the long field enumeration, and there is no filler. The single sprawling sentence listing a dozen metric families is dense and harder to parse than a short bulleted form, but every item listed is substantive content the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back — and it does so comprehensively, covering page-level metrics, site-level signals, and the comparability of the numbers. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the URL format and an example already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('misure oggettive di una pagina') and enumerates exactly what is measured: text, structure, answer-upfront, sections, freshness, author, sources, structured data, entities, plus site signals (HTTPS, domain age). It also explicitly routes one sub-case to the sibling schema_validate, so an agent can distinguish it from that tool without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear implied context (auditing a single page as an AI crawler sees it) and one explicit alternative with its condition: 'per la validazione completa usa schema_validate'. It does not state when-not to use it or differentiate from overlapping siblings such as geo_page_sections or geo_ai_access.

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