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

The description states 'does not query AI platforms or save a visibility run,' which implies no side effects and read-only behavior. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, which contradicts the description's implied read-only nature. This is a clear annotation contradiction, so the score is 1.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the primary function, and the second clarifies scope and exclusions. There is zero redundancy, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly assess applicability.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and explicitly notes it has no side effects, which is essential context. However, the contradiction with readOnlyHint creates ambiguity, and the description does not hint at what the output (prompt suggestions) looks like or how many are returned, though the output schema exists. Given the contradiction and minor gaps, completeness is adequate but not excellent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage—every parameter (url, brand_name, country, language) has a description with format details (ISO codes, defaults). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('AI Visibility prompts for a URL'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it does not query AI platforms or save a visibility run, distinguishing it from run-creation and execution tools.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for prompt ideas only, not for actual queries or runs. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the exclusion of 'query AI platforms' and 'save a visibility run' implies that for those operations one should use other sleepwalker tools. This is sufficient guidance but lacks an explicit 'use X instead' statement.

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