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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe and repeatable. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'generate queries', suggesting it returns queries rather than performing an audit, but provides no details about rate limits, response format, or side effects. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Generate AEO audit queries') and scope ('for a domain/industry'). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured for quick scanning.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the generated queries look like, how count/language affect results, or how it differs from the sibling audit tools. The read-only annotations cover safety, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameter meanings. It only covers 'domain/industry' implicitly, leaving 'count' and 'language' unexplained. The schema's constraints (count min/max, language enum) are not referenced, so the description adds only a partial bridge between parameters and intent.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate AEO audit queries for a domain/industry.' It uses a specific verb ('generate') and identifies the resource (AEO audit queries). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_domain and audit_domain_premium by implying it produces queries rather than conducting audits, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over audit_domain or quick_check. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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