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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses it tests multiple AI engines and reports citation status, but does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or data handling. Basic behavioral context is present.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and adds a key requirement. No unnecessary words, though slightly more structure could improve scannability.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the domain and requirement but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value by stating that empty queries auto-generate brand queries and that the api_key requires a Pro plan, enhancing meaning beyond schema.

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 verb 'check', the resource 'domain citations in AI search engines', and specifies the engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude). It distinguishes from siblings like geo_scan by focusing on AI citation visibility.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like geo_scan or geo_deep_scan. The description mentions 'requires Pro API key' but does not specify scenarios or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (scores, grades, metadata) but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Two sentences that front-load purpose, then add output detail and usage hint. Every sentence is valuable with no 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?

With no output schema, description explains return type (scores, grades, metadata). Parameters are clear. Missing error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for simple tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema descriptions for the two domain parameters.

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 compares two domains' GEO readiness scores side by side, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like geo_get_profile (single domain) and geo_scan.

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 mentions 'useful for competitive analysis' providing some context, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the free tier and 10 scans/day limit, and that it returns the key. However, it does not mention if the creation is irreversible, requires authentication, or has per-user limits.

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?

Two sentences conveying all essential information: purpose, usage limit, return value. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter, limit, and return. It could be improved by noting that the key is only shown once, but overall complete for a simple creation tool.

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?

The single parameter 'name' has 100% schema coverage. The description adds a real-world example ('my-project') that complements the schema's description, providing extra clarity without redundancy.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'GEOScore API key', with additional context of 'programmatic access'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., geo_scan, geo_check_visibility) by being the only tool for API key creation.

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 implies when to use this tool: before using other geo_ tools (since it returns an API key for them). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the requirement for a Pro plan and lists outputs, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, mutability, or potential side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is relatively concise, though the phrase 'full pro-level analysis' is somewhat redundant given the subsequent list of outputs.

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 complexity of the tool and no output schema, the description lists several outputs but does not specify the response format or behavior details. It is adequate but lacks completeness in explaining the full scope of returned data.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating that the api_key must be for a Pro plan and provides a URL to obtain one.

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 uses the specific verb 'deep scan' and clearly identifies the resource as 'domain'. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'geo_scan' by explicitly listing additional outputs like implementation markdown, llms.txt, and a 14-day sprint plan.

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 the prerequisite of requiring an API key with a Pro plan, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like 'geo_scan' or when not to use it. The implication is clear but not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions scanning and generating fix files, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., writes to project?), authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter, or rate limits.

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 concise, with the main purpose front-loaded. However, it could be slightly better structured by separating the fix type listing from the main action.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and lists fix types. It lacks details about the output format or any post-generation steps, but is adequate for a basic understanding.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enumerates fix types already in the schema enum, adding no new meaning. The api_key parameter description repeats the schema's note about obtaining it from a URL.

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 generates ready-to-use fix code for GEO issues, listing specific fix types. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like geo_scan and geo_deep_scan, which are focused on scanning and analysis, not fix generation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., geo_scan or geo_deep_scan) is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for choosing fix types.

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

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

The description discloses return data but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are cached or fresh. As no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get', and no extraneous text. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns. However, it could mention that it provides historical data versus real-time scanning (distinguishing from geo_scan) and any prerequisites.

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% (single parameter with description). The description adds no extra semantics beyond listing return fields, which are not parameters. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a domain's GEO score history and profile, listing specific return fields (latest score, best score, scan count, dates, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geo_scan (scanning) and geo_check_visibility (visibility checks).

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 mentions 'useful for tracking improvements over time' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no exclusion of other tools or context about prerequisite scans.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose if report retrieval is idempotent, requires prior scan, or any side effects. Only says 'returns data'.

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?

Single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and key information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers return values (domain, score, grade, check details). Lacks specification of report ID format or source, but sufficient for basic use.

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 has 100% coverage with description for report_id. Description adds format example but essentially repeats schema. Adequate but no extra insight.

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 retrieves a report by ID and lists returned data (domain, score, grade, check details). It is specific and distinct from siblings like geo_scan or geo_deep_scan.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs siblings (e.g., geo_get_profile, geo_compare). No mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It describes the output but not behavioral traits like read-only nature or potential destructive actions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Scan a website for AI search (GEO) readiness') and then efficiently lists key outputs, using no superfluous words.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (score, grade, 11 checks with issues and fixes). However, it omits potential limitations, error behavior, or prerequisites, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The single parameter 'domain' has a clear schema description ('Domain to scan (e.g. 'example.com')'). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional nuance to the parameter, but the schema is sufficient.

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 explicitly states it scans a website for AI search (GEO) readiness, returning a score, grade, and 11 specific checks. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like geo_compare or geo_deep_scan by focusing on readiness assessment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geo_deep_scan or geo_check_visibility. The description gives no hints about prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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