Rank the brands answering alongside yours

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral details beyond the schema: the measurement matches the project's own brand methodology, the own brand is included and marked, and results are ranked by share of voice. No contradiction 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?

The description is focused and front-loaded with the core behavior, then adds only the necessary distinction from visibility and ranking. It is slightly discursive in explaining share-of-voice versus visibility, but that contrast earns its place because it prevents misuse.

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 ranking tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the result contains: ranked brands by share of voice, with the project's own brand included and marked. It does not detail exact output fields or sort direction, but 'ranked' and 'strongest brands' make the intent clear.

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%, so the parameter descriptions already document limit, model, startDate, and endDate fully. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action—list/rank brands named by assistants—and a specific metric (share of voice), while explicitly marking that the project's own brand is included and flagged. It also distinguishes itself from visibility-focused tools by defining what share of voice measures versus visibility.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants share-of-voice ranking rather than visibility counts, and when ranked strongest brands are desired rather than a paginated list. It implicitly contrasts with sibling visibility tools but does not name a specific alternative tool.

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