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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: it is FREE, reads connected/stored data (implying no additional setup cost), and explains the meaning of the 'connected' flag. This goes beyond the annotations, warranting a high score, though not the maximum because it doesn't describe response format or retry 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?

The description is concise yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers the connectivity nuance, and ends with cost information. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of context without redundancy, and the structure flows logically from what to how to cost.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (which should describe return values) and only two optional parameters, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what it does, how to interpret connectivity, and cost implications. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 only 50%: user_intent has a description but windowDays does not. The description mentions 'trends' which implies a time window, but it doesn't explicitly explain windowDays semantics beyond its name and schema constraints (min 7, max 90). The description does not compensate for the missing schema description, so the agent must infer the meaning from context. A 3 reflects that the description provides some context but not full parameter clarity.

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 (AI crawler activity) and specifies exactly what it returns: which bots visited, classification by purpose, trends, top pages, and the crawl-to-citation funnel. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ai_funnel by focusing on crawler activity rather than the funnel specifically.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is relevant, especially the note about 'connected=false' meaning the customer hasn't set up ingest yet. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for choosing this over the many related siblings (e.g., get_ai_visibility, get_ai_funnel). The intent is inferable but could be more direct.

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