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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the failure return shape `{ ok: false, error }` and warning against blind retries. It does not mention cost, latency, or whether the run is async, which is the remaining gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with remediation guidance following. The error-handling sentence is slightly verbose with its parenthetical example, but each part earns its place by preventing a common misuse.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers only the failure return, not what a successful run returns (run ID, status, async behavior). For a non-destructive trigger tool whose annotations are already informative, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about success semantics.

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 coverage is 67%, and the two documented parameters (context, llm_model) carry extensive descriptions that the prose does not need to repeat. The description's phrase "configured project" only loosely implies what advertiserProjectId should be, and that parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: manually re-running AI Visibility analysis over all saved prompts on a configured project. That scope is clear enough to separate it from configuration siblings like save-llm-config or get-llm-monitoring. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 word "Manually" signals the trigger condition (user-initiated run versus scheduled runs), and the second sentence gives concrete guidance on the failure path: explain the error and ask the user to resolve it rather than retrying. No explicit "when not to use" or named alternative is given, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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