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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds content details but no additional behavioral context such as data freshness, pagination, or performance limitations. It does not contradict the annotations, and given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and lists the key output components without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It enumerates the expected output dimensions (share per engine, gaps, cited competitors, tracked domains), giving the agent a solid mental model. It could mention the default weeks value, but that is already in the schema.

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% for both parameters (site_id and weeks), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

The description states the verb 'Show' and the resource 'AI answer visibility for a website', then lists specific output components (share per engine per week, open answer gaps, cited competitors, tracked domains). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_site_metrics or get_competitors, so it misses the distinction bonus.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention any alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. The description simply describes what it shows, leaving the agent to infer its place among the 19 siblings.

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