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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: every gap is returned with its evidence and a suggested fix, and the returned gap_id is the input mark_fix_shipped expects — useful workflow coupling the annotations do not express.

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 no filler. The core resource definition is front-loaded and the workflow hook (gap_id → mark_fix_shipped) is placed last as supporting detail.

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, but the description compensates by describing the shape of each returned item (gap, evidence, suggested fix, gap_id). Combined with fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it, though pagination or ordering behavior is unstated.

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% and both parameters (brand_id, include_closed) are already documented in the schema, including the single-brand omission case and the default for include_closed. The description adds nothing further about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returned — the gaps that prevent AI engines from citing/recommending the brand — plus what each entry contains (evidence and suggested fix). It differentiates from siblings by tying itself to mark_fix_shipped via gap_id, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another schema.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you want remediation targets for AI visibility, and the mention of gap_id feeding mark_fix_shipped clarifies its downstream position. However, it never states when to prefer this over adjacent tools like get_visibility, get_competitors, or get_changes, and gives no exclusions.

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