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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a nightly scheduled run already exists, so manual invocation is for immediate freshness only. It stops short of describing duration, cost, or whether it blocks, which for a re-measurement sweep would be useful.

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, action front-loaded, and the second sentence's length is justified by the concrete trigger list. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 one simple required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: what it does, when to call it, and the shape of the result ('how many moved'). A minor gap is whether the response includes per-goal detail or just a count, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The phrase 'on a brand' loosely ties site_id to the brand concept, but adds no format, ID source, or scoping detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('Re-measure') and resource ('every metric-backed goal on a brand'), plus the immediate observable outcome ('report how many moved'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like goal_metrics (read metrics), update_goal (edit a goal), and list_goals.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('only when you have just changed something') and enumerates the triggering events (crawl, rank check, AI-visibility scan, batch of fixes), while implicitly ruling out routine use because it also runs nightly. This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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