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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ranking semantics (share of citations vs. number of answers citing) and that the brand's own site is included, which is useful output context. It says nothing about cost, latency, or how the reply is structured, so it is solid-but-not-rich against the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the ranking subject and ends with the brand's own position. It is dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 carry the return-value burden, and it does explain what the two rankings represent and that the brand's own site rank is included. It leaves gaps around reply structure and engine breakdown that the agent must learn from the schema or the response itself.

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% and the schema already documents limit, engines, brand_id, and window_days, including defaults and the counted_engines behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning 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 the concrete resource (websites cited by AI answers for the brand's buyer questions) and the exact shape of what comes back: two rankings plus the brand's own site position. It is far more specific than the tool name alone. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings like get_visibility or get_competitors, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent deciding between this, get_visibility, and get_competitors gets no routing help at all.

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