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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns the newest *finished* report's own unlisted link, and reports are built automatically only after a brand's first scan. It does not cover what happens when no finished report 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the outcome (the link) before the explanatory details. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or title.

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 return-value burden and does so by describing the link and its content plus the precondition (a finished report exists after the first scan). The one gap is the behavior when no finished report is available.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single optional parameter fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail about brand_id. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns the shareable link to the brand's AI visibility report) and enumerates its contents (mention frequency, competitors, cited sources). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_visibility and get_citations by promising a link rather than raw data, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

"To share with a team or client" implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no alternative tool named for agents that want the underlying metrics instead of a shareable link.

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