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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly explains the data scope: aggregate figures across four engines, per-engine breakdown, and a clear caveat that there is no per-engine citation-rate split. It also states the free cost behavior, adding valuable operational context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows through parameter source, metric scope, a granularity caveat, and cost. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations already cover read-only behavior, the description leaves no critical gaps for invoking the tool correctly: metrics, engines, project_id source, and cost are all explicit. Only explicit sibling routing is absent, but that gap is already reflected in usage_guidelines.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful extra context by clarifying that project_id is a ranking id from list_projects and by describing how the reported figures are measured, which helps an agent select and pass the parameter correctly.

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 clearly that the tool reports a project's visibility across AI answer engines, including share of AI voice, presence, citation rate, and competitive rank. It lacks an imperative verb like 'get', but the purpose is unambiguous and the metric naming separates it from related tools.

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 description gives useful context by explaining that project_id comes from list_projects and noting the call is free, which implies when it can be safely used. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with siblings like get_share_of_voice or get_ai_citations, so when-to-use guidance is mostly inferred.

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