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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the result is null until win_prompt has run. It also discloses the output's three components (answer, gap versus cited pages, schema to add) without contradicting the annotations.

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 one dense, well-structured sentence: it names the resource, enumerates the three output components, and ends with the key null precondition. No filler, no 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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are already covered. The description supplies the essential missing context: the dependency on win_prompt and what the brief conceptually contains. The two parameters are self-describing in the schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with both project_id and prompt_id already explained in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's output: a gap brief for one AI prompt containing a quotable answer, a comparison of cited pages versus the site, and the schema to add. It references win_prompt, which anchors its role, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like get_ai_citations or get_content_brief.

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 'null until win_prompt has run' gives a clear precondition, telling the agent this tool should be called only after win_prompt has executed. It provides useful temporal context, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly say 'use this instead of X'.

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