geo_deep_scan

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.