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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by explaining the default scope (only currently active platforms) and by defining the semantics of shareOfVoice vs primaryShareOfAllCitations. This is valuable behavioral context, though it stops short of describing return format or pagination.

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?

Three concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The metric definitions are compact and directly useful.

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 explains the key domain concepts well and works well with the fully documented schema. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the shape of the response or provide explicit differentiation from similar tools, which leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 parameter descriptions already carry most of the meaning. The tool description reinforces the default behavior around active platforms, which relates to includeHistoricalPlatforms, but it does not add substantial information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('competitive positioning data') and describes what is shown: primary, competitor, and other citations. It also mentions the metric names, which helps separate this from generic citation tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar siblings like devtune_get_citation_analysis.

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?

Does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions. The only usage-related statement is about default aggregation over active platforms, which is more of a behavioral default than guidance for tool selection.

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