geopass_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it explains the receipt is 'live-readonly' and explicitly states 'does not guarantee rankings or citations,' which clarifies the tool's non-authoritative nature.

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 and resource, followed by a useful capability enumeration and a scope disclaimer. Slightly list-heavy but no filler.

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 read-only analysis tool with full annotation coverage and a complete schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and output nature well. It doesn't describe pagination or response format, but there is no output schema and the receipt contents are enumerated, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the url alias and target_sha staleness checks. The description only adds the public-URL scoping constraint, which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run GEOPass against a public URL') and enumerates the exact receipt dimensions it produces. This clearly distinguishes it from the similarly-named geopass_status sibling.

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?

Implies a one-off live-readonly readiness run, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. geopass_status, no prerequisites, and no exclusions (e.g., that it only works on public http(s) URLs is buried in the parameter schema, not the description).

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