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

Despite annotations only saying non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description discloses the key behavioral traits: real questions are sent to OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemini; there is a rate limit of one measurement per domain every 30 days; the operation is free and needs no signup; and the response can indicate quota_reached with the previous run time. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence contributes a distinct fact: method, cost/auth, quota, runId handoff, and quota_reached behavior. It is detailed but not padded.

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 carries the burden of explaining the runId and next steps, which it does. It could be slightly more explicit about the expected response shape beyond runId/quota_reached, but the core invocation-to-retrieval flow is fully covered.

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 covers all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by tying the quota to 'domain' (website) and noting that competitors can be passed, but it does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 says exactly what the tool does: it measures whether a brand appears in AI assistant recommendations by asking real buyer questions. It also clearly distinguishes itself from get_visibility_check: this tool starts the check and returns a runId, while the sibling retrieves results.

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 gives clear context: call this tool to start a visibility measurement, then call get_visibility_check after about a minute with the runId. It does not explicitly list cases where this tool should not be used, but the quota and next-step guidance make the intended usage obvious.

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