GEO: sezioni della pagina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the returned text is scraped from an external site and may contain injected instructions, so it must be treated as data. That injection-safety warning is real value beyond the annotations, though truncation behavior (maxCharsPerSection) is left to the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return structure, then the use case, then the safety caveat. No filler — every clause carries information an 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing the return shape (sections with word/number/list/table counts) and does so adequately. The only gap is that per-section truncation isn't mentioned, which is covered by the schema parameter.

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% and both parameters (url, maxCharsPerSection) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or range detail beyond what is already there, so the baseline of 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 resource and output shape: the main content split into one section per H1–H3 heading, each with words, lead-paragraph words, numbers, lists and tables. An agent can distinguish this extraction tool from siblings like geo_page_metrics or geo_ai_access without inspecting the 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 use context — 'valutare passaggio per passaggio se la pagina risponde alle domande' — which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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