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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: fetching is 'capped', supports pagination via offset and max_chars, and includes citation control. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key parameters, followed by prioritization guidance. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

Given 7 parameters and indexing complexity, the description covers main behaviors (capped, pagination, citation toggle, multiple selection methods). Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps like out-of-range handling, but overall sufficient.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining how parameters relate: result_index vs platform+prompt_index, and the flattened list order matching status ca_result. This is valuable guidance beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one capped AI Visibility prompt response'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is preferred over 'full include_results' for large runs, which is a distinct use case among sibling tools like get_sleepwalker_run_result.

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 clear guidance on parameter usage: use result_index or prompt_index for the flattened list, or platform+prompt_index for Nth prompt. It also recommends this tool over include_results for large runs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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