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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's real contribution is the auth-dependent data source and the fact that the signed-in variant requires a completed audit and includes answer engines the free reading does not. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured fields. It doesn't state rate limits or what happens when no finished audit exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ordering guarantee is front-loaded in the first clause, which is the right priority. The remainder is a single long run-on sentence with stacked clauses about auth tiers and snippet types; it is dense but every clause carries information, so it stays efficient rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't define return values, yet it usefully previews the item shape and the paste-ready artifact types an agent can expect. Given three simple parameters and full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only the empty-audit case and rate/latency expectations are left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so url, limit, and offset are already documented, including the 'most important first' ordering and the nextOffset convention. The description's 'most important first' and per-page framing merely restates what the schema says, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling here.

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 names the resource concretely — an ordered fix plan for a site's AI visibility — and enumerates what each item contains (what to change, why it matters, points recovered, pages, paste-ready snippet). That content profile separates it from analyze_site, get_analysis, and visibility_history without naming them. It stops short of an explicit contrast with a sibling, so it isn't a clean 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?

Usage context is implied through the auth tiers: anonymous callers get the free version derived from the identity reading, signed-in callers get the version built from their latest finished audit. That tells the agent what it will get in each case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to get_analysis or analyze_site, which is the more useful routing signal for a fix-plan tool.

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