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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fixed window rollups, the exclusion logic, that counts are citations not mentions, and that coverage is measured against availableDays not the requested window. This prevents incorrect interpretation of results and is highly transparent about the data's limitations.

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 description is dense but organized: it starts with the main purpose, then exclusions, then data semantics, then contract scope. Every sentence adds critical information for correct usage. It is somewhat long but every part is necessary given the tool's complexity, so it earns a 4.

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 is inherently complex with subtle data semantics (rollups, exclusions, citation vs mention). The description covers all the essential details an agent needs to correctly interpret results. No output schema exists, but the description explains what the data represents (citations, coverage days, asOfDate), making it complete for correct usage.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about gapType meaning but doesn't go into detail about each parameter beyond what schema provides. It does clarify that windowDays only accepts 30/90 and defaults, which is in schema. The description's contribution is minimal beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool measures specific content gap types (topic, source, brand) from fixed 30/90-day rollups. It distinguishes itself by specifying what is excluded and that it reports citations split by primary/competitor. This clearly differentiates from siblings like devtune_get_citation_analysis and devtune_get_citation_stats.

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 explicitly states what is excluded (owned sources/brands, topics with majority citations) and what is not part of the contract (pipeline scores, summaries). This guides an agent to know when to use this tool vs others in the same domain, though it doesn't name alternatives directly.

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