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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating the sort order ('newest first') and the content of the feed. It does not mention pagination behavior or what happens when the result set exceeds the page size, 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the ordering guarantee, followed by the filters. Adjacent clauses carry the event taxonomy without padding; every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description supplies ordering and filter semantics, leaving only minor gaps (limit/pagination, whether an empty feed is possible) for what is a simple three-parameter read tool.

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 67%: since and domain_id are documented in the schema (including 'from list_domains' provenance), while limit has only bounds and a default. The description restates the two filters at a high level but adds no detail beyond the schema and says nothing about limit, so it neither compensates for the gap nor detracts.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (recent AI visibility events) and enumerates the event types included (citations won/lost, fixes proposed, goals reached), which lets an agent distinguish this aggregate feed from narrower siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with list_citations or list_fixes, whose subject matter overlaps with two of the enumerated event types.

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?

'Optionally only since a date or for one domain' tells the agent what filtering is possible but not when to choose this feed over siblings such as list_citations, list_fixes, or score_ai_visibility. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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