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 pagination behavior, no ordering, no indication of what a scan record contains or how results relate to get_visibility_results.

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 clean sentence with zero waste and the key noun front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely economical prose.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the safety and scoping story is adequately covered by annotations and schema. Still, nothing explains how this list relates to get_visibility_results or what identifying field an agent should carry forward to fetch a scan's details.

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 limit and site_id, including the default of 25 and the 'omit for every scan' semantics, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description contributes no additional meaning, which lands at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 (List) and resource (AI visibility scans), so an agent knows exactly what entity is being enumerated. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as get_visibility_results, get_visibility_sources, or run_visibility_scan, which all touch the same visibility domain.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several siblings operating on the same visibility-scan domain. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right entry point versus get_visibility_results or run_visibility_scan.

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