dante.probe_geo_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the engines measured but does not disclose important behavior such as cost implications of live queries, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the probe actually returns.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool description and every phrase contributes to the stated 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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It does not explain expected outputs, how Share of Model is computed, what live=false means, or how the remaining undocumented parameters affect behavior.

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 only 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It mentions target metrics and engines but does not explain target_name, industry_or_context, lang, live, or vertical_mode beyond what the schema partially provides.

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 a specific verb, 'Measure,' and names the exact metrics (GEO Share of Model and First-Choice Win Rate) plus the AI engines covered. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as dante.forge_geo_shield or dante.run_audit.

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 what is measured but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving usage selection to inference.

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