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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context about the content being returned, but it does not discuss return format, ordering, or whether answer options are always included.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the core resource and includes the Turkish name. It is efficient, though the trailing list of additional content is slightly compressed.

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 read-only retrieval tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what is returned, though it could better connect the tool to the broader Visibility Check workflow.

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 goal and lang parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly identifies the resource as the 16 questions of the free Visibility Check, including answer options, profiles, and goals. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from compute_visibility_map, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than compute_visibility_map or other siblings. The description implies it returns assessment questions, but it does not state prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions.

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