geo_check_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool sends queries to providers, that without confirm it returns only an estimate, and that with confirm it spends money and writes results to history. It even quotes a specific cost (Yandex 5.08 ₽ per query), which is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 core purpose, then the cost/confirm caveat. Every phrase contributes information: what the tool does, what the estimate costs, what confirm changes, and what is recorded. Zero 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain outcomes. It does — it states the check returns whether the domain appears among sources, with address, position, and who is cited instead, plus the cost estimate behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though minor details like what 'history' contains are left implicit.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the estimate/paid distinction tied to confirm, the default provider behavior (all configured), and the kind of output produced (address, position, alternatives). These details help an agent understand parameter effects without opening the schema.

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 answers a specific question — 'does AI search cite the site?' — and explicitly describes the mechanism: sends queries to providers and checks whether the domain appears among sources, with address, position, and alternatives. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_serp_results (classic SERP) and geo_providers (provider configuration).

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 clearly explains the two modes (estimate without confirm, paid run with confirm) and the cost implications, giving an agent enough context to decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of providing full when-not-to-use guidance.

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