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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: guideId is always required, missing it returns 404, eeatId is an optional filter, mismatched eeatId returns 404, and the endpoint should be polled until status is done or failed. This goes beyond basic schema info and gives operational context.

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 description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by parameter details and polling guidance. It's slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value. The front-loading of the main purpose and the clear separation of parameter behavior is effective.

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?

For a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: required parameter, optional filter, error behavior, and polling pattern. It doesn't describe the response structure, but since there's no output schema and the polling guidance implies status field, this is reasonably complete. Could mention what 'done' or 'failed' means in terms of response, but not critical.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context about access control and 404 behavior, but doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves E-E-A-T analysis results, with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('result of an E-E-A-T analysis'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_eeat and get_eeat_competitors by focusing on fetching analysis results rather than creating or fetching competitors.

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 description explicitly explains when to use this tool: poll until status is done or failed. It also clarifies the optional eeatId filter behavior and the required guideId, giving clear context for when to include or omit parameters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the polling guidance and parameter conditions provide strong usage direction.

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