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 safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value: 'Makes no request to the website' rules out an implicit fetch, and 'the remaining request budget' discloses that the response is budget-aware — context the annotations do not convey.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the deliverable before the contents list, and the no-request caveat is placed last where it reads as a qualifier. Dense but every clause maps to a real property of the response; slightly long for one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so the enumerated return contents are redundant but harmless, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. The gap is input-side: with 0% schema coverage, an agent still cannot tell how market/language/competitors alter the plan or what the four goal values do.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It gestures at 'goal' (research findings that apply to the goal) and the business website, but says nothing about how 'market', 'language', or 'competitors' shape the plan, nor what the goal enum values actually select.

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 — 'Return the ordered checklist for an AI visibility audit of a business website' — and enumerates what the checklist contains. It is distinguishable from siblings like check_ai_crawler_access or inspect_page_evidence because it produces a plan rather than evidence, though it never names those alternatives to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the word 'Plan' plus 'Makes no request to the website' signals this is a cheap preparatory step, but there is no explicit 'call this first' instruction or 'use X instead when Y' routing against the four sibling tools. An agent must infer its position in the workflow.

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