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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is free, requires no authentication, and the data comes from a 70M-company index. It does not mention latency or rate limits, keeping it short of 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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core result (score 0-10) and then the supplementary return components, closing with the access constraint. No filler.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back (overall score, sub-scores, authority signals, llms.txt verdict) and confirms no auth is needed for a single-parameter read tool. It is nearly complete; only guidance on failure cases (e.g. unknown domain) is absent.

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 100% with a single well-documented required parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'any company domain' adds only marginal framing beyond the schema's 'Company domain or URL, e.g. example.com'.

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 a specific verb (get) and resource (Engagemii AEO score) with scope (any company domain) and enumerates the exact return contents: overall 0-10 score, six on-page sub-scores, seven off-page signals, llms.txt verdict. This is distinguishable from siblings like aeo_audit and search_companies 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?

The phrase 'for any company domain' and 'Free, no auth' give useful context for when the tool applies, but it never names an alternative (e.g. aeo_audit or search_companies) or states when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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