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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful result content (per-page checks and score, ordering, averages, failure counts, blocked crawlers) and the meaning of view=excluded. It omits basics like read-only nature, pagination semantics for limit/offset, and any latency/auth context, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the primary output content leads, then aggregate stats, then view/query notes. Every clause conveys information, though the single run-on structure is slightly hard to parse.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully characterizes both the returned data and two parameters. It still leaves pagination (limit/offset), sort semantics, and the excluded-view relationship under-specified, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 only 20% (just project_id), so the description must compensate. It explains view=excluded and the query URL filter, adding real meaning beyond the schema, but says nothing about limit or offset behavior, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

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: it returns AI-citability content checks per page (text in HTML, answer at opening, question titles, content schema, short paragraphs) plus a score, ordered worst-first, alongside aggregate averages and blocked AI crawlers. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_ai_visibility or get_aio_impact, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 supplies some routing signal by scoping the data source ('from the last audit') and by explaining that view=excluded switches to excluded pages and query filters by URL. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus the many neighboring AI/audit tools, so usage remains implied.

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