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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the useful assertion 'Nothing is stored,' which speaks to persistence rather than just read-safety. It also discloses the result shape (capped gaps/strengths), though it says nothing about how missing or partial answers are handled.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, then enumerates the result contents, closing with the storage disclaimer. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 a nested-object parameter and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating what comes back (area statuses, gaps with recommendations, strengths). Minor gap: no note on whether a subset of answers is acceptable or what 'unknown' statuses imply for partial input.

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% — every parameter, including the nested answers map with its enum and the goal/profile/lang fields, is documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the count constraint ('16 questions', '8 areas'), which is helpful framing but not new per-parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Computes') and named artifact ('the Visibility Check'), plus a concrete breakdown of the output: status for 8 areas, up to 3 priority gaps with recommendations, up to 2 strengths. This clearly separates it from the sibling get_visibility_map_questions, which supplies the question ids rather than the score.

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 phrase 'from answers to the 16 questions' implies the prerequisite (answers must already be collected via the questions tool), and the schema reinforces this by pointing at get_visibility_map_questions for ids. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for scenarios like re-running with partial answers.

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