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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds value: it discloses that partner-scoped tokens are locked to their own brand (an authorization boundary) and that answers are flagged for human review. It does not describe pagination or the response format.

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?

It is a single dense sentence but front-loads the object of the report before listing the breakdowns, and the closing scoping clause is placed last where it belongs. Every clause carries content; 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does so concretely (share of answer, cited domains, agent statements, wrong/contradicted claims). It is essentially complete for a read-only report tool, missing only structural detail like sections or pagination.

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 both parameters (window, partner) are already documented, including the enum values and the note that partner is ignored for scoped tokens. The description's 'partner-scoped tokens are locked to their own brand' largely restates the schema rather than adding new parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and a rich set of outputs: share of answer across ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity/Gemini, cited domains, agent statements, and incorrect/contradicted claims. It never names a sibling (e.g. partner_question_insights) to differentiate itself, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated content ('AI visibility for one partner's upgrade program'), so an agent can infer this is the reporting tool rather than the Q&A or bidding tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, which the sibling list (partner_question_insights, get_partner_info) would have rewarded.

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