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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it is free, it reads only published data, it aggregates third-party assistant data, and it signals variability by noting the store check is returned 'when one exists' — implying partial results are possible.

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?

Front-loaded with the subject ('What 7BE knows about how AI assistants see an online store, by domain'), then the payload breakdown, then a short qualifier sentence. The middle clause is dense but every element maps to returned data, so there is little waste.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the four content areas an agent will receive. It omits shape and ordering details, but for a single-parameter read tool this is sufficient to set expectations.

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 100% and the single 'domain' parameter already carries a format example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'by domain' only confirms that the lookup is keyed on domain, adding marginal meaning beyond the structured field.

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 resource — a domain's AI visibility report — and enumerates its contents: naming frequency across ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Mode, AI Health score, site problems, and latest store check. This is clearly distinct from siblings like list_store_categories, about_7be and find_stores, which an agent can rule out without opening any schema.

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 implied by the content ('look up how AI assistants see this store'), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative or exclusion. The 'Free; reads only published data' clause is a constraint rather than routing guidance, so the agent must infer the calling context.

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