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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing that the response includes quota remaining and a running-audit status flag — non-obvious side information an agent would not infer from 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 compact sentences with no filler: the first declares the payload, the second declares the calling convention. The important prerequisite instruction is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so at a useful level (questions list, quota remaining, running status). It could be slightly more complete by noting that the question list is read-only here and edited via set_tracked_questions, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description's brief mention of what the result includes is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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 concrete resource (the tracked questions each AI visibility audit sends to ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and Grok) and additionally enumerates the two secondary return values: remaining audits this period and whether one is running. That makes it easy to distinguish from run_ai_visibility_audit and get_ai_visibility without inspecting schemas.

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?

'Call this before running an audit, so the user can check the questions first' gives explicit sequencing guidance tied to a concrete goal, which is more than most sibling tools offer. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. set_tracked_questions for editing the list) or stating when not to call it.

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