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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether results are cached, whether an incomplete scan errors, or how fresh the data is, despite a non-idempotent read hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriate length for a simple read tool. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being padded, so it earns close to full marks on conciseness alone.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of indicating what a visibility scan result contains (sources, scores, answer visibility), but says only "the results." For a retrieval tool whose value depends on interpreting returned data, this is a meaningful gap.

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% – the detail parameter's concise/detailed verbosity and the scan_id meaning are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics, so the baseline of 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 ("Get") and resource ("results of an AI visibility scan"), so the operation is unambiguous. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_visibility_sources, list_visibility_scans, or run_visibility_scan, leaving the agent to infer the division of labor.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_visibility_scans, run_visibility_scan, or get_visibility_sources, and no prerequisite noted (e.g., that a scan must have completed first). The required scan_id only implicitly hints at the workflow.

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