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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns JSON with specific structure (H1, H2, FAQ, schema markup), which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or error handling.

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?

Four concise sentences: purpose, input, output, usage. No fluff. Each sentence adds distinct value, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given 4 parameters, output schema description, and annotations, the description covers inputs, outputs, and usage. Missing minor details like error states or rate limits, but overall largely complete for an API tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It does so by paraphrasing all parameters with ranges, defaults, and constraints (e.g., 'one of 7 verticals', '300-5000, default 1500', 'up to 3 competitor_urls'). This adds readability and context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description explicitly states it generates a structured GEO-optimized content brief. It differentiates from sibling tools like audit, bulk search, etc. by specifying the use case: 'USE WHEN you need to brief a writer so a page is built to be cited by AI search engines.'

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?

Description provides clear when-to-use guidance via 'USE WHEN...' and lists input constraints. It does not include negative guidance (when not to use) or explicitly compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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