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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations it discloses cost ('Free'), the enumerated state values (active/ended), the breakdown of submission types (shared chat links vs screenshots, approved vs pending), and the fact that the report may not exist yet and carries a private URL. Since there is no output schema, this return-shape detail is genuinely load-bearing rather than redundant.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource, with the sibling routing placed at the end where an agent will look for next-step guidance. The middle count clause is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which costs a little readability but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, cost, and the follow-up action, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It does not address what happens with an unknown or expired check_id, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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 single check_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including its origin from create_ai_visibility_check), so the description does no parameter work of its own. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the semantics.

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 exact resource ('one of the user's AI-visibility checks') and enumerates what the result contains (state, submission counts, generated report with private URL), so an agent can distinguish it from create_ai_visibility_check and generate_ai_visibility_report. It is clear but leans toward describing the payload rather than stating the act of retrieval, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling get_* tools.

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 specifies the scope of valid checks ('made here or in the web app'), notes the call is free, and gives an explicit conditional route to the alternative: if the check has ended with submissions and no report exists, offer generate_ai_visibility_report. That is a concrete when-to-use-sibling rule rather than implied usage.

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