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

Annotations declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile, and the description adds materially more: the crawl+score happens asynchronously in the background, the operation fails at the plan's domain limit, and it consumes no credits. Cost, failure condition, and async behavior are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by operational facts (async crawl, failure mode, cost). No repetition of the title or schema and nothing that could be cut.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what happens next, what makes it fail, and what it costs. It could still note duplicate-domain behavior, which the non-idempotent hint implies but the text never addresses.

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 both 'domain' and 'brand_domains' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or cardinality detail beyond it, matching the baseline for a fully-covered schema.

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 ('Start tracking a domain's AI visibility in this workspace') and implicitly scopes it against list_domains, remove_domain, and recrawl_domain. An agent can tell this is the create/onboard operation without opening the schema.

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 clear context for invoking it — background crawl/scoring on seed, plan-limit failure, and no credit cost — which tells the agent when the call is appropriate and when it will fail. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., recrawl_domain for existing domains, list_domains to check existence), so it is not a full 5.

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