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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: rows carry a 'bottleneck' stage and a verdict sentence, and it explains the canonical URL model and the ownership taxonomy, which helps an agent interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with the registry definition, then the canonicalization concept, then an args list. The ownership enumeration is the longest block but each term earns its place as a distinct filter value. Minor redundancy around 'the same page across' phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return content; it does by naming the bottleneck and verdict fields per row, plus pagination via cursor/limit. Annotations cover the safety dimension. What is missing is any guidance on result ordering or how to page forward, but the tool is adequately described.

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 17%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it defines each ownership class (owned/competitor/editorial/social/video), explains 'tracked' as pages someone chose to watch, gives the 1-200 limit range, and notes the cursor comes from a prior response's meta.next_cursor. It omits user_intent, so not a 5.

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 resource ('the page registry: one row per URL this brand owns or appears on') with a clear scope, and clarifies what a 'page' means here via canonical URL keying across crawler/citation/audit data. It implicitly separates itself from sibling list/get tools, but never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this to enumerate a brand's pages,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings like list_page_analyses or get_crawler_pages. The description informs but does not guide selection.

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