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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base of practitioners, books, and research. It does not discuss rate limits or output limitations, but the annotation coverage plus the added description make this solidly transparent.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the domain and action, and the second adds the key output characteristic (summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base). Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what kind of questions to ask and what kind of answer will come back. The schema handles parameter details and annotations handle safety, so the only real gap is the missing guidance about which sibling to prefer, which is already penalized in usage_guidelines.

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 parameters query, top_k, and email are already fully documented. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning—only the word 'Ask' loosely maps to the query parameter. This matches the baseline of 3 for high 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (Ergora Content marketing) and its scope (SEO, editorial, distribution, content strategy), and it states the output format (summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the broader ergora_marketing sibling, but the content-marketing scope narrows the purpose enough for an agent to select it for relevant queries.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings like ergora_ads, ergora_sales, or ergora_marketing. The description implies content-marketing questions are appropriate, but it does not state exclusions or point to an alternative, leaving the agent to infer the boundary based on the topic list alone.

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