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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile need not be restated. The description usefully adds that results reflect the latest or a chosen run and include competitor listings and citation frequency, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result size beyond what the schema hints at.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the level/domain semantics, then the use case. Dense but no wasted sentences; the first sentence is a little packed.

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 and 9 params at 22% coverage, the description covers the conceptual core well but leaves several filter params unexplained. Adequate for selecting the tool, thin for configuring 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 coverage is only 22% across 9 params, so the description must compensate and it does so partially: it explains level (domain=publishers, url=pages) and the domain parameter's role, and alludes to audit_id via "latest or a chosen run." It leaves cohort, engine, market_id, limit, and cursor undocumented.

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 — the domains/URLs that engines cited — plus the added dimensions (frequency, whether you or competitors are listed). This differentiates it from siblings like read_visibility_overview/trends/results without naming them explicitly.

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?

"Use it to find the sources to earn a place on" gives a motivation and implied context, but there is no explicit when-not or pointer to an alternative among the many read_visibility_*/read_source_url siblings. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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