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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing data provenance (DataForSEO estimates) and explicitly warning what the numbers are NOT (citation counts, referrals, causation proof). Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, which the description doesn't need to repeat.

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?

Four tightly-written sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by workflow, scope caveat, and definitional caveat. 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?

Complete enough for a read-only reporting tool: usage trigger, workflow, scope caveat, and data-provenance warning are all present. No output schema exists, but the description clarifies the return semantics (US/English monthly counts and estimated search volume) sufficiently.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains platform scope (US/English), that each platform is requested separately, and what the query filter produces — adding meaning beyond the sparse schema. Still doesn't fully define the 'crew' parameter format or the query object's full key semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns historical AI mention/AI search volume data for a licensed website, with explicit scope (monthly history). Distinguishes from siblings like get_usage_metric_history by naming the AI visibility domain and DataForSEO sourcing.

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?

Clear trigger condition ('when the user asks for historical AI mentions or AI search volume'), plus a workflow hint ('Resolve the Crew and website first, then request each platform separately'). Doesn't name a sibling alternative to distinguish from, so not a 5.

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