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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds valuable content context (what the metrics reveal about online discovery, AI search results, and perception divergence) but discloses nothing about data freshness, coverage limits, or rate behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then expanding into the three outputs. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers the three analytical dimensions it surfaces. It is essentially complete for a single-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps around which specific metrics are returned.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single ticker parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only implies an NZX scope that the schema already states explicitly, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus resource 'digital presence metrics', and it enumerates three concrete sub-dimensions (AI visibility, investor discovery, perception gap). The 'where market perception diverges from filing truth' framing makes it easily distinguishable from siblings like get_ir_dashboard or get_news_sentiment.

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?

Scopes usage to 'an NZX company', which implies the appropriate context, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and names no alternative sibling for overlapping reputation/perception needs. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement.

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