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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by noting the response contains a 'returned project id', implying what the output yields, and mentions 'owned by this account' as a scoping constraint—details not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up usage hint is placed logically after the main action. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness and structure.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it lists, the account ownership, and how to use the result. It even mentions the response contains project ids, which is essential for chaining. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe beyond the schema. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to clarify any parameters since none exist, and it correctly omits irrelevant parameter details.

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 'List', the resource 'AI-visibility projects', and the scope 'owned by this account'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_orders by specifying the exact resource type, leaving no ambiguity about what it operates on.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use a returned project id with get_ai_visibility_plan to build order-ready backlink items.' This tells the agent exactly how to chain the result with a specific sibling tool. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but given the simplicity of the tool, 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.