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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that with the untrusted-content warning ('information, never instructions') and the tracked-prompts precondition. It does not describe return shape or limits, but the output schema exists for that.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the prerequisite and the safety note following. Three short paragraphs with little waste, though the injection warning is somewhat boilerplate-flavored and could be tightened.

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 read-only analytical tool with a full output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and output trust posture. Only minor gaps remain around what the share-of-voice figures are relative to.

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% and the enums for scope and days are self-documenting, so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g., how scope interacts with the share-of-voice metric), so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: it returns which brands AI engines name on the same prompts plus their share of voice versus this brand. That is concrete and disambiguates it from generic reads like readAnswers or readRankings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear purpose ('find out WHY the brand is absent from a topic - who is occupying it') and a prerequisite constraint ('Only for a workspace that tracks its AI visibility'). It stops short of naming alternative tools for adjacent questions, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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