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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond the annotations: it explains the processing flow (crawl, parse HTML/structured data) and enumerates what the result covers (AEO summary, AI-bot access, crawl-hint files).

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 tightly written sentence with the processing steps and return contents front-loaded, and no wasted wording.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return surface (AEO summary, AI-bot access, crawl-hint files). For a one-parameter, read-only analysis tool this is nearly complete, though it could mention depth or limits.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It indicates the single input is a URL to crawl, which is useful, but adds no format, validation, or scope constraints beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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 specific verbs (crawl, parse, score) and the resource (a URL's HTML and structured data), and names the domain concept (answer-engine optimization). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling visibility/reporting tools.

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 purpose implies when to use it (single-site AEO analysis), but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over check_ai_visibility or get_visibility_report, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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