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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: response_format's context-protection behavior, the period-freezing semantics, and the days_back caveat. However, it doesn't disclose return shape details or rate/cost characteristics; with annotations covering safety, a 3 reflects solid but incomplete added value.

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 opening is well front-loaded, but the bulleted view list and Args section are long and partially redundant with the schema (e.g., restating defaults for days, limit). Information density is high, but for a 12-param tool it borders on verbose rather than trimmed.

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 12 parameters, one output-less schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains views, filters, pagination, and the response_format trade-off. It could still note expected return fields per view, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 25%, so the description must compensate — and it does. It explains view, days, period, limit, offset, domain, days_back, tag_ids, prompt_text, and response_format semantics that the schema alone does not, including interactions (days ignored when period set; days_back capped at 30).

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 ('Get citation data showing which URLs AI models cite') and distinguishes itself from every sibling by domain scope. The opening sentence makes it clear this returns citation sources, not rankings, traffic, or prominence scores.

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?

Explicitly enumerates all 11 views with a one-line description of what each returns and the constraints each imposes (e.g., view='sources' requires 'domain', period only works with top_pages/analytics, feed uses days_back). This is effectively a complete when-to-use map.

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