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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: every returned value is an unverified guess from the website (or the returning brand's stored data) and must be confirmed by the user. It does not cover failure behavior for an unreachable or invalid domain, which is the main 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 workflow instruction and the human-approval gate are front-loaded, which is the right priority. The run-on sentence enumerating every return field is dense, though it is partly justified because no output schema exists.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return shape (brand_name, steps and their field structure, scan engines, how_to_ask) and the confirmation workflow. What's missing is only edge-case behavior, such as what happens when the site can't be read.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('The company's website or domain, e.g. "acme.com"'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only implies that the argument is the site to read; 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('read the company's website') and frames the tool's role as 'step one of a scan'. It also makes the boundary with the sibling tool explicit ('before calling scan_ai_visibility'), so an agent can distinguish it from scan_ai_visibility and get_visibility_report without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call this first'), an intermediate action ('walk the user through `steps` in order'), and a hard gate ('get a yes before calling scan_ai_visibility'). The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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