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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context by disclosing the internal scope (one audit plus N prompt checks against a live external service) and that the result includes an aggregate citation rate. It omits operational traits that matter for an open-world, per-prompt fan-out call: latency, cost, and failure behavior for an invalid API key.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the composite behavior and the headline output metric. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 three-required-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential shape of the result (a combined report with an overall citation rate) and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The remaining gap is behavior under partial failure or invalid credentials when running many per-prompt checks, which is a modest omission rather than a blocker.

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 coverage is 67%: prompts and perplexityApiKey are documented in the schema (BYOK, never stored), while url has only a format constraint and no prose. The description adds the notion that url is the audit target and prompts are tested per-item, but contributes no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 names a specific action and output: composing an AEO audit plus per-prompt visibility checks into one report with a citation rate. This implicitly reveals that the tool is a composite of the sibling tools analyze_website_aeo and check_ai_visibility, which helps an agent place it. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can deduce that this is the tool to call when it wants both an audit and prompt-level visibility in one shot. There is no explicit guidance such as 'use this instead of calling analyze_website_aeo and check_ai_visibility separately,' no exclusion criteria, and no note about when the single-purpose siblings would be preferable.

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