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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the empty-list-plus-note state when the feature is not enabled, and the queryId join key for splitting metrics in get_citations, get_evidence and get_citation_history. It does not discuss pagination or size limits for large template sets, which keeps it off a 5.

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 content is dense and useful, but the structure is poor: it opens with a sentence fragment ('How a site's tracked prompts are grouped into templates and variants:') and then runs long compound sentences chaining return fields and siblings together. The parenthetical join instruction is valuable but buried mid-stream rather than front-loaded or separated.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does: return envelope (site + templates), per-template fields, per-variant fields with null semantics, the join key to other tools, and the disabled-feature state. Nothing an agent needs to call it and interpret the response is missing.

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 siteId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the connected-app vs API-key distinction. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States precisely what is returned — site grouping of tracked prompts into templates and variants, with template id/text and per-variant dimensions — and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_prompts (every tracked prompt) and get_opportunities (untracked questions). An agent can tell what this resource is and isn't without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the concrete use case (compare results by country, language, persona, funnel stage, product) and names both alternatives with the condition that selects them. It also explains the degraded case (feature disabled → empty templates plus a note), so the agent knows how to interpret an empty result rather than retrying.

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