geo_get_profile

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.