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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a fixed page size of 20, and the fact that location_id is applied after BrightLocal returns a page, so short pages are normal and next_cursor keeps going. It stops short of stating ordering or whether a total count is returned, which keeps it off a 5.

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 output shape is front-loaded, then pagination caveat, then the sibling handoff — a sensible order with no filler. The two parenthetical glosses on live/competitor citations are useful but make the opening sentence dense; a slightly tighter phrasing would lose nothing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so field by field. Combined with the pagination rule and the alternative tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret a short page.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: cursor is framed as continuing past a page that may have been shortened by post-fetch filtering, and location_id is characterized as a page-level filter rather than a server-side query. Neither insight is recoverable from "Only reports of this location."

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List Citation Tracker reports") and then enumerates exactly what each row contains (location, reference, schedule, last run, live citations, competitor citations), including a definitional gloss for the two citation counts. It is immediately distinguishable from get_citation_tracker_report, which is named as the single-report counterpart.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use this tool to enumerate reports, and use get_citation_tracker_report to read one. That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the kind of sibling differentiation an agent needs.

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