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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are sorted by citation count descending. It does not disclose pagination behavior, the default limit, or what is returned when no prompts are tracked.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the ordering rule is placed where it is immediately visible. The clipped, verbless phrasing is efficient but slightly under-specified rather than a model of structure.

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?

For a simple two-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly adequate. Remaining gaps are scope (per profile? per prompt set?) and the empty-state behavior, which an agent would want before calling it.

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%: the limit cap of 25 and the engine values (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Grok) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or scoping detail beyond that, so the 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 names a specific resource — websites cited by AI engines when answering tracked prompts — and adds the ordering rule ('most cited first'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_ai_visibility or get_search_queries, though it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools (get_ai_competitors, get_ai_visibility, search_ai_prompts). The only hint is 'tracked prompts', which implicitly ties this to set_tracked_questions, but the agent must infer that dependency.

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