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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that this mutates state by adding a prompt and kicking off an analysis run, and it documents the failure contract: a `{ ok: false, error }` result means failure and should be surfaced rather than retried. It omits permission requirements, duplicate/idempotency behavior, and any cost implications of starting a run.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed by actionable failure guidance. No wasted wording, though the error-handling sentence is somewhat generic boilerplate.

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?

The description reveals the error response shape despite no output schema, which helps, but for a mutation tool with nested parameters and a sibling that estimates setup cost, it leaves the agent unsure about cost, duplication, and how the "scoped analysis run" relates to create-llm-run.

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 only 50% and the description explains none of the four required parameters, including the nested `prompt` object with `prompt`, `languageCode`, `location`, and `funnelStage`. With half the schema undocumented and a nested structure, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: adds one tracked AI Visibility prompt to monitoring and starts a scoped analysis run. The word "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk sibling add-llm-prompts, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Implies a monitoring must already be configured ("to configured monitoring") and gives error-handling guidance (explain, ask user to help, don't retry blindly), but it never says when to pick this over add-llm-prompts or create-llm-run, nor what prerequisites exist.

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