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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious data semantics beyond that: the three counts are 'kept separate and never added together,' which prevents an agent from summing them into a bogus total, and it discloses the data source (the Goppa plugin on the user's own site), implying a site without the plugin yields nothing.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the source and then enumerates the metric types; no filler or restatement of the title. Slightly oblique phrasing ('counted on your own site by the Goppa plugin') costs a little parsing effort but every clause carries information.

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 and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to establish what is being measured and when to call it. It handles the former well but leaves the crowded AI-metrics sibling set undisambiguated, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong here.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry detailed descriptions, including the multi-site selection behavior and the cursor contract. The description adds nothing about 'site' or 'cursor' 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 resource — real AI traffic measured on the user's own site — and enumerates the three distinct stream types (assistant-opened pages, clicks from AI answers, crawler visits). That is far more specific than the title alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many AI-related siblings (get_ai_answers, get_ai_sources, get_ai_visibility), so an agent cannot tell which AI tool to call from the description alone.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing language at all. The phrase 'on your own site' faintly implies a contrast with AI visibility/answer measurements elsewhere, but the agent is left to infer that against three closely named siblings. No prerequisites (e.g., plugin must be installed) are stated as a precondition for calling.

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