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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds behavior beyond that: it returns a Markdown-formatted report, lists the exact sections, and notes the tool is client-ready. It also discloses that website_url enables full dimensional scoring. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is longer than minimal, but well structured with purpose, use-when, args, returns, and examples. It front-loads the core purpose and uses bullets instead of prose. A few sentences, such as 'It shows the business exactly what they're missing,' are mildly redundant but do not undermine usability.

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 moderately complex tool with a nested input and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and one important input nuance. The presence of an output schema and readOnly annotations reduces the need to document return values or safety in greater depth.

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?

The only direct parameter guidance is 'Business details' plus the useful hint that website_url is needed for full dimensional scoring. The nested BusinessInput schema carries most of the field-level detail; while this hint adds value, the description does not meaningfully compensate for the 0% top-level schema description coverage of the params property.

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 and resource: 'Generate a complete, client-ready AI Visibility Opportunity Report.' It enumerates the report's components (gap confirmation, competitor landscape, dimensional scoring, revenue impact) and explicitly contrasts it with more targeted sibling tools by calling it 'the full deliverable.' An agent can distinguish this from avenity_check_visibility, avenity_get_competitor_landscape, and avenity_score_business.

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?

A dedicated 'Use this when' section gives concrete triggers: a client needs the full picture, a single comprehensive output is wanted, or a consulting call/proposal is being prepared. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it should not be used for or stating when a narrower tool is preferable, so it misses the explicit when-not/alternatives that would earn a 5.

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