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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the score range, the data source (40 million+ dataset), and auth requirements (no auth). It doesn't cover not-found cases or rate limits, but for a simple read-only lookup it provides strong transparency.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and output contents, the second adds data source and access cost. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and its data provenance. It lacks error/edge-case behavior, but an agent can invoke it correctly with the provided information.

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 single parameter 'domain' is already documented as 'Company domain or URL.' The description adds little beyond the schema, 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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Get the Engagemii AEO score') and enumerates the exact output components (six sub-scores, seven off-page signals, llms.txt verdict). This clearly separates it from a generic audit or other tools, even without naming a sibling.

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 usage is implied: pass a company domain to retrieve the score. It notes 'for any company domain' and 'Free, no auth,' but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over aeo_audit or any other sibling, nor any exclusions.

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