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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with 'Reads stored settings only, nothing runs' (no job side effects) and 'Takes a few seconds' (latency expectation), neither of which is derivable from structured fields. Not a 5 only because the read-only nature is partly restated.

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 usage guidance and the no-side-effects note are front-loaded and earn their place, but the long multi-clause enumeration of return contents duplicates what the existing output schema already conveys, making the description denser than necessary.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema, this covers purpose, exact trigger conditions, side-effect profile, and latency. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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?

There is a single 'project' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that either the project name or projectId is accepted. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Lists what Hi, Moose tracks for a project in AI search') and then enumerates the exact payload: tracked prompts with ids/topics/engines/branded flag, topics and engines with counts, competitors, brand aliases and owned domains, run schedule, and stored-answer span. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings visibility_get_summary and visibility_list_results, which are named as downstream consumers.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call it before visibility_get_summary or visibility_list_results when the user names a topic, engine, prompt, page or competitor, so the filter values are exact.' It names the alternatives and the triggering condition, which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs.

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