geo_scan

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.