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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses that results come from an 82M-company index and that access is free with no auth, both operationally useful. It omits failure behavior for domains absent from the index, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the score scale, then the signal breakdown and provenance. Every element earns its place, though the trailing 'Free, no auth.' fragment breaks the flow slightly and could be folded in.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload: a 0-10 score, twelve rated signals split on-page/off-page, and the llms.txt verdict. What is missing is edge-case behavior (unknown domain, partial data) and any note on latency or rate limits for a single-parameter lookup.

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 is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with an example format, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only adds that the target can be 'any company domain', which does not meaningfully extend 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 and resource ('Get the Engagemii AEO score (0-10) for any company domain') plus the exact output breakdown (twelve signals rated Weak/Fair/Good/Strong plus an llms.txt verdict), so the agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from the close sibling aeo_audit, which keeps it short of 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as aeo_audit or brand_profile, despite several plausible siblings. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement itself, which restates what the tool does rather than when to reach for it.

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