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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: that results are paged, that `total` is the full match count while a single page is not the full set, and that non_branded counts unclassified prompts toward the headline — non-obvious semantics worth stating.

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, each carrying distinct load: purpose, classification semantics, and pagination contract. The pagination caveat is stated in the same breath as the mechanism, not buried.

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 takes on return-value explanation and does so for the paging envelope and the prompt_type field. It stops short of describing the visibility_score field or row shape more broadly, but that is a minor gap for a read-only list 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining the prompt_type taxonomy and how unclassified folds into non_branded, which directly affects filter results. It does not add syntax detail for `attributes` or `order`, which the schema already handles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get visibility scores for tracked prompts/queries'), which distinguishes it from the aggregate siblings get-visibility-score and get-visibility-summary by implying per-prompt rows. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 prompt_type and paging notes give useful context for how to consume results, but there is no explicit 'use this when… / use get-visibility-summary instead' guidance. An agent must infer from the sibling names which endpoint serves the aggregate versus the per-prompt view.

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