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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful 'each market is measured separately – never pool markets' caveat beyond annotations, but discloses nothing about return structure, pagination, or how runs are selected.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the returned content before the parameter guidance, with no filler. Sizing is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description should carry more of the burden. It sketches the returned metrics and key param conditions, but omits explanation of cohort, engine, audit_id and the overall response shape, leaving gaps for a 6-parameter read 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 0%, so this 6-parameter tool relies entirely on the description for parameter meaning. It only explains baseline_id and market_id, leaving cohort, engine, audit_id, and project_id undocumented anywhere, which is inadequate compensation.

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 metrics returned (mention rate, citation rate, competitor rankings, run status) and the run scope (latest or chosen), which is clear content. However, it does not distinguish this 'overview' from close siblings like read_visibility_results, read_visibility_trends, or read_visibility_sources.

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 explicit conditional guidance for two parameters (pass baseline_id to compare runs; pass market_id for non-default markets, never pool markets), which is useful calling guidance. But it never states when to choose this tool over the other read_visibility_* siblings, leaving the primary selection decision to inference.

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