Read how the brand is cited

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the nature of the output (citation types and sentiment) and its relationship to visibility. It does not disclose implementation details or limitations, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential behavior beyond the 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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the output and gives concrete examples; the second sentence clarifies the distinction from visibility. Every word earns its place, and the key concept is front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to expect. It does not mention whether it uses the active project or any context from sibling tools, but given the simplicity and the strong distinction from visibility tools, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and understand the result. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention that it depends on the active project context, but this is not critical.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially covered (100%). Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none, but it explains what the tool returns, which is the key semantic for an agent. No deduction needed.

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 what the tool does: it characterizes how the brand is cited in answers (recommended, compared, expert, passing) and the associated sentiment. It explicitly distinguishes itself from visibility tools by contrasting frequency ('how often') with quality ('what appearing is worth'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_visibility_summary and get_visibility_timeseries.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool versus visibility tools by explaining the difference between frequency and quality. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_answers or other related tools, nor does it give explicit 'when not to use' guidance. The contrast with visibility is strong, so it earns a 4 rather than 3.

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