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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds genuinely useful behavior context beyond the annotations: results are limited to the most recent run (not historical), and each row reports engine mentions plus the competing brands named instead. It does not cover ordering or pagination behavior, but the added context is solid.

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 tight sentences with the result content front-loaded and filtering capabilities following. There is essentially no filler; the only mild weakness is that the opening is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement, which costs a little immediacy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what the records contain (engine mention status and the brands named instead), which is the key return-value information. With zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the remaining gaps (ordering, total counts, behavior when no run exists) are minor for a simple filtered-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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the engine enumeration and the boolean meaning of 'mentioned'. The description restates the filter axes at a high level and does not add syntax or semantics beyond the schema; the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all. Baseline 3 applies where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific resource (tracked prompts), scopes it to the latest AI visibility run, and states what information comes back (which engines mention the brand, which competitors they name instead). No explicit verb is given, but an agent can readily infer a filtered listing operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_ai_visibility or get_tracked_questions based on this wording.

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?

It says what can be filtered (engine, mentioned/not mentioned, text), which implies usage, and the 'latest AI visibility run' phrasing scopes it implicitly. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the closest alternatives (get_tracked_questions, get_ai_visibility), so an agent must infer which tool to pick for adjacent questions.

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