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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by explaining the 'measured' flag and false-flag semantics (UNMEASURED, never zero), the meaning of each stage combination, and that it consumes no AI credits. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, measurement breakdown, honesty warning, interpretation guide, and cost. The most critical info (what it returns) is front-loaded, and the structure is logical. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (three joined measurements, a honesty flag, and interpretation patterns), the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Cost and read-only behavior are explicitly stated. Complete.

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?

The single parameter 'user_intent' is already fully documented in the schema with a clear description and max length. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable per baseline. It correctly omits redundant information.

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 ('get') and a precise resource ('full AI-search funnel per page') with the three joined measurements (CITED, CRAWLED, REFERRED) and a stage 0. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ai_visibility or get_ai_crawler_activity by naming exactly what it composes, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 explains when to use it (to see the full funnel) and how to interpret results ('check measured first', the false-flag warning, and the cited/crawled/referred combinations). It also states the cost is FREE, which informs whether to invoke it. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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