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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the ~30 second runtime (latency expectation) and that the check combines a live probe with PostHog data.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the runtime plus related-tool pointers follow as supporting detail.

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 return values need not be explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies latency and method. What is only loosely covered is the boundary with get_ai_visibility, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains siteId ('Site id from list_sites'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the 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 specific verb (checks) and a precise object (whether ChatGPT, Perplexity and other AI assistants are tracked on a site), plus the mechanism (probe plus PostHog). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_ai_visibility or check_site_readiness.

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 'Related: list_sites, get_ai_visibility' note implies list_sites supplies the siteId and that get_ai_visibility is the adjacent tool, but it never states when to prefer this tool versus get_ai_visibility or what preconditions apply. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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