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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe, web-touching nature is covered. The description adds that the tool aggregates multiple external sources and emits a computed score plus a markdown brief, but says nothing about runtime cost, whether results are cached, or how the 'fresh' flag changes behavior.

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?

It is a single comma-spliced sentence with five output clauses; each clause carries information, but the lack of structure makes it hard to scan and there is no lead statement of the primary outcome (citation probability) ahead of the tail outputs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload, which partially offsets the missing schema docs. However, for a 9-parameter, multi-source analysis tool it omits parameter meaning, defaults, and any latency or scope caveats, so an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke it precisely.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the whole burden and it only mentions two of them ('query' and 'brand'), leaving gl, hl, depth, fresh, domain, engine, and location entirely unexplained. It also implies brand is part of the call when the schema shows brand is optional with a null default.

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 and resource ('Run GEO Citation & Injection Radar') and enumerates five concrete outputs (citation probability score, Reddit/Quora threads, listicle PR targets, AEO question gaps, injection brief), which distinguishes it from siblings like google_serp and ai_answers. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 says what it does 'for a topic query and brand' but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no routing guidance versus the seven sibling tools. An agent cannot tell from this text when to pick the radar over ai_answers or find_discussion_candidates.

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