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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what the response contains — citation frequency, the engines citing each page, and which brands each page names — which is useful for a read-only tool with no output schema.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the when-to-use trigger, the second enumerates the returned fields. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema and three well-documented parameters, the description supplies the missing piece — the shape of the return (pages, citation counts, engines, named brands) — so an agent knows what it will get. Minor gap: no note on ordering beyond 'cited most often' or pagination semantics tied to limit.

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% (days window with default 28, brand name/id with the list_brands pointer, limit capped at 50 with default 15), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, cross-parameter interaction, or default guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource (list citation sources) and scopes it precisely to 'the pages cited most often across the brand's tracked prompts.' None of the siblings (get_prompt_answers, check_ai_visibility, get_ai_visibility) surfaces citation pages, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering situation: 'when someone asks which websites or pages AI answers rely on... or where they should try to get mentioned.' Clear context for invocation, but it names no alternative tool or exclusion (e.g., when to prefer get_prompt_answers for raw answer text).

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