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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context ('summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base'), but is silent on quota/auth behaviour (the free tier and email unlock live only in the schema) and on latency or whether sources are reproducible.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what the tool is and its scope, the second what it returns. Nothing repeats the title or the schema, and nothing is padded.

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 moderate-complexity query tool with no output schema, the description does name the return format, which is the main thing missing elsewhere. But with 19 sibling specialists and no routing rule, an agent still lacks enough to reliably choose this tool over ergora_marketing, ergora_community or ergora_ask.

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 query, email, top_k and subscribe are each already documented, including the free-tier mechanics and the subscribe confirmation flow. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the expected baseline when 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 names a specific specialist domain (Local Marketing) plus a concrete scope parenthetical — local SEO, small business marketing, community presence — and states the deliverable ('summarised, cited insights'). This lets an agent tell it apart from generic siblings like ergora_marketing or ergora_community, though the overlap with those two is never explicitly resolved.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, which matters because the tool sits among 19 near-identical 'ergora_<domain>' specialists (ergora_marketing, ergora_community, ergora_pr) plus ergora_ask and ergora_list_specialists. The agent must infer routing purely from the domain label in the title.

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