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

Annotations already declare this a safe, closed-world read, so the description's job is to add interpretive context — and it does, explaining that each row carries one of three listing states or a count of competitors ahead. It does not disclose the cap on results (max 25), how gap score is computed, or what the response shape looks like. Useful but incomplete beyond the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences: the ranked-output definition first, the usage cue second — well front-loaded with no filler. The first sentence is dense with clauses (three listing states plus the competitor-count case), but every clause carries meaning.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: a ranked list of sources annotated by brand-listing status. The main omission for a ranking tool is the meaning of 'gap score' and the result-size cap, which an agent would need to interpret or paginate the output.

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 (limit, default 15, range 1-25) has zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so an agent learns nothing about what the limit bounds or how to size it. With only one optional parameter the cost is modest, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.

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?

Specific verb-and-resource statement: it returns top external sources cited by AI assistants in a category, ranked by gap score, with each source's brand-listing status versus competitors. An agent can distinguish this from get_rankings or get_evidence by the mention of 'gap score' and 'confirmed listed / not listed / competitors rank ahead.' It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is not a 5.

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 closing sentence gives an explicit use case — "where should we get listed / how do we raise authority" — which is a clear context for selecting this tool over the ranking and visibility siblings. It offers no exclusions or negative guidance (e.g., when get_rankings is the better choice), which keeps it out of the 5 band.

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