Google AI Overview citation check

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 5–20 seconds per keyword and explicit per-keyword and per-run pricing. It stops short of describing failure modes or rate limits, but the latency and cost disclosure is real value 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 purpose and output scope are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, and the usage sentence follows logically. The pricing clause, with per-date tiers and currency figures, is heavier than strictly necessary but is still information an agent may need to relay about cost.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the fields the check reports (overview presence, citation position, competing domains, brand mention, overview text, organic rank, deltas). Given annotations plus the six fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to call it, though error/empty-result behavior is not covered.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, making 3 the correct baseline. The description reinforces that the domain is 'yours' and that brand mentions and cited competitors are tracked outputs, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (check Google AI Overviews for keywords) and enumerates the scope of what is determined: overview presence, citation position, competitors cited, brand mentions, organic rank, and deltas. It is distinguishable from most siblings, but the closely related sibling check_ai_visibility is never mentioned or differentiated, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a use context (AEO/GEO audits and monitoring), which is more than implied usage, but offers no when-not guidance and no routing against alternatives even though check_ai_visibility is an obvious candidate. Usage direction is present but unqualified.

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