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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: the scan executes on asrm.ai rather than locally, and it warns never to state a score not received from the user — an anti-hallucination guardrail absent from structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences: usage trigger first, return value second, external-service caveat last. No padding, and the most decision-relevant information 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (returns a link to the scan). It covers trigger, output, and external constraint. A fuller definition might mention the score range's meaning or what the link leads to, but this is nearly complete for a one-param link tool.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, where the schema already documents 'domain' with an example. The description's "for their domain" adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns a link to ASRM's free AI visibility scan for a domain. The agent can tell this is a link-provider, not the scan executor. It doesn't explicitly contrast against siblings like check_ai_readiness, so it stops 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?

"Use when someone asks how visible their brand is in ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity or Gemini" gives a clear triggering condition tied to user intent. It lacks explicit exclusions naming siblings such as check_ai_readiness, so it's clear context without routing alternatives.

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