geo_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool 'doesn't spend anything' and that each finding includes evidence and recommended actions, which is useful context. However, it does not clarify whether it fetches pages, whether it modifies anything, or what limits apply.

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, with the core purpose and checklist front-loaded. The second sentence adds value about output format and side-effect behavior. Slightly dense as a run-on list, but no wasted 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?

The description covers what is checked and what the output looks like, which is adequate for a read-only audit. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, how many pages are checked by default, and how it relates to sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about the url or pages parameters, but it does not need to because the schema is self-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 clearly identifies the tool's focus: assessing a site's readiness for AI search without API keys, and lists concrete aspects (llms.txt, robots.txt AI bots, JSON-LD, FAQ markup, Markdown versions). It lacks a direct verb like 'check' or 'audit', but the resource and scope are specific enough to distinguish it from generic tools.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geo_check_visibility, audit_site, or geo_history. The phrase 'without keys' implies a use case, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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