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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds important operational context: API-unit costs for Ahrefs reports, a max of 8 pages to limit cost, and the OnPage.dev scan lifecycle (one page per call, results kept 15 minutes, re-call until complete). It does not detail return format, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads purpose well, but the middle sentence is dense and runs together multiple alternatives, costs, and the OnPage.dev lifecycle, making it harder to parse. Content earns its place, but organization could be clearer.

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?

Covers when to use it vs. check_ai_visibility, cost/privacy constraints, and the async scan behavior, which are the main things an agent needs. Output schema and annotations fill remaining gaps about returns and safety.

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 50%. The description explains why to include low-citation pages (so uncited ones return 0) and the 8-page cost cap, which reinforces the schema constraints, but it doesn't explain the per-engine count fields (grok, gemini, etc.) or the source enum beyond naming common sources. Baseline 3 fits given partial schema coverage.

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+resource: comparing cited vs. skipped pages, using citation counts from connected tools. Distinguishes from sibling check_ai_visibility, which it names as the fallback when citation data is missing.

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?

Explicit branching: if Ahrefs with Brand Radar is connected use its cited pages report; otherwise any AI-visibility source works; without citation data use check_ai_visibility. Also instructs including low/no-citation pages so comparison is possible, and caps the request at 8 pages.

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