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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds conceptual context about what the data represents (cited domains and URLs) but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or rate limits, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 zero waste: the first front-loads the returned data, and the second gives the actionable use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should summarize return values, which it does at a high level (domains and URLs, ranked by citations). It omits pagination and default limits, but those are covered in the schema, leaving the definition largely complete for a read-only analytics tool.

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 fully documents all six parameters. The description mentions "overall and per engine" implicitly touching the engine filter, but adds no syntax or default details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 resource as the domains and URLs most cited by AI engines for buyer questions, and specifies scope (overall and per engine). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling analytics tools like get_visibility or get_prompt_gaps, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Use it to find where the brand should get listed or mentioned" gives a concrete when-to-use scenario. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but the intended context is clear.

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