check_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses request volume ('about 4 polite requests'), throttling ('1 s apart'), a declared User-Agent, and robots.txt compliance. What's missing is whether it needs credentials or works only on public sites (it says 'public website', which mostly covers this) and what happens on failures/timeouts.

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 core purpose and behavioral notes come first, then a compact Args block. Every line adds information — the check list, the politeness profile, and the format tradeoff — with 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, how it behaves on the network, and what the format flag controls. The only real gap is the shape of the returned report, which the agent must discover at call time, though the 'structured report'/'human-readable report' phrasing sets expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'url' gets a concrete format example (https://example.com) and 'format' is given the two meaningful values ('json' structured report vs 'markdown' adding a human-readable report). It stops short of stating URL normalization rules or whether scheme is required, but the enum semantics are clearly conveyed.

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 ('Run the full GEO technical check') on a specific resource ('a public website') and enumerates the checks performed (robots.txt AI-crawler access, JSON-LD types, /llms.txt, sitemap, head tags). An agent can tell this is a broad bundled audit, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling check_robots, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 scope implies when to use it (you want the full site audit rather than a single robots probe), and the enumeration of checks hints that check_robots is a subset. However, there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead when' statement, so routing between check_site and check_robots is left to inference.

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