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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the transformation (score to tier/plan) and that it's 'Free', but doesn't disclose what the output looks like, whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond the basic transformation.

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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The word 'Free' is a minor addition that may be useful context but is not essential. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't explain what the output schema contains (tier and plan details) or any prerequisites (e.g., must have completed the checklist). The output schema likely covers return values, but the description could be more complete about the transformation logic.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'score' as the total from the 30-point checklist. The description adds the range 0-30 and the concept of a checklist, which is slightly redundant with the schema but reinforces the meaning. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: converting a 0-30 visibility score into a tier and prioritized fix plan. It uses a specific verb ('Turn') and identifies the resource (visibility score). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the function is distinct enough from audit_ai_visibility, check_license, and get_checklist.

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 implies usage: when you have a 0-30 visibility score and need a tier/plan. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling tools suggest related but different functions, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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