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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads only from saved data or caches, consumes no scan allowance, and treats missing evidence as unavailable rather than zero. It also notes that quoted source text is untrusted. These details go beyond what the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) provide.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses short sentences and no wasted words, though the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the title.

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?

The description covers behavioral aspects like data source and missing evidence, but with no output schema and a 4-parameter tool, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of cited queries) and parameter usage. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to call it with full confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no information about the parameters (competitor, limit, since, engine). The description only mentions 'competitor' implicitly. Baseline 3 is generous given the lack of parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns questions that name or cite a competitor. This is clear and distinct from siblings like get_citation_sources or get_mentions, though it could more explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies the tool is for finding questions citing a competitor, but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives such as get_citation_sources or get_mentions. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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