Score AI Overview eligibility

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key traits: 'Read-only. One HTTP GET.', 'Deterministic, rule-based scoring... No LLM calls.', 'Same URL returns the same score on repeated runs.' No contradictions with 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?

Description is well-structured: purpose first, then output details, then behavioral traits, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage, an output schema (mentioned), and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (overall score + six subscores), and how to choose it over siblings.

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% (both parameters documented). The main description adds value by explaining the URL parameter's behavior ('fetches the URL once and runs deterministic...') and providing usage guidance for respect_robots ('Set false only for auditing your own site where you've intentionally blocked crawlers.').

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 ('Score') and resource ('page's probability of appearing in Google AI Overviews'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming audit_page and score_citation_worthiness as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('AI-Overview-specific prioritization') and when not, with named alternatives: 'use audit_page' for multi-dimensional audit, 'use score_citation_worthiness' for passage citation-worthiness.

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