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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are grouped per engine, answers are counted by whether you were named, and the first block is competitor-only citations. It omits page size, though the cursor parameter's schema covers pagination.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary subject front-loaded. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic ('First, the sources cited only in answers...'), which costs a little clarity but not space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations plus the schema cover safety, the multi-site requirement and pagination. What the description adds — engine grouping, naming counts, competitor-first ordering — makes it sufficient for correct invocation. It is only marginally thin on when to prefer it over the visibility and traffic siblings.

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 both parameters (site, cursor) are fully documented in the schema, including the multi-site requirement and the next_cursor mechanics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

It names a specific resource (the sites/sources AI assistants cited) and adds scope detail: broken down engine by engine, with counts of answers that named you. That is more than a restatement of the title and lets an agent distinguish it from answer-level siblings like get_ai_answers. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 second sentence ('First, the sources cited only in answers that named a competitor and not you') signals a priority ordering or default focus, which implies when this call is most useful. However, it reads as output-ordering information rather than guidance, and it never states when to pick this over get_ai_visibility, get_ai_traffic or get_ai_answers, nor any prerequisites.

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