get_index_share_of_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose useful return concepts: ranked entities, citation frequency, top-1 share percentage, and an HHI-style concentration score. However, it doesn't clarify sorting direction, entity count limits, or whether this is strictly a read-only operation beyond the 'Get' verb.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('ranked entity list') and then adds the concentration details. Every clause contributes useful information with no unnecessary filler.

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?

The tool has one required parameter documented in the schema, and this description adequately covers the key output concepts for a low-complexity tool. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it, though it could be strengthened by mentioning the expected ordering or any limits on the ranked list.

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%, and the only parameter, indexId, is already described as 'The index UUID from list_indexes'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource: a ranked entity list for an index by citation frequency, plus concentration metrics. It communicates the tool's unique output, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as get_index_results or get_index_sources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_index_results, get_index_sources, or get_index_whitespace. It implies a share-of-voice use case, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites (such as first listing indexes), or exclusions.

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