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

Annotations already flag a destructive, open-world write operation, and the description adds substantial operational context: it spends money, requires write scope, depends on credit and tenant caps, and explains same-day idempotent replay behavior. This is exactly the kind of cost and rate-limit disclosure an agent needs before invoking.

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?

The cost warning is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences each add a distinct constraint: scope, plan requirement, idempotency, caps, and same-day replay behavior. There is no wasted text despite the dense operational detail.

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 paid, destructive, open-world mutation tool, the description covers permissions, billing, limits, and idempotency thoroughly. Since no output schema exists, it could say more about what the scan returns or whether execution is async, leaving a minor completeness 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics about the idempotency key and the fact that same-day repeats replay the original result regardless of the key. It still largely echoes the schema's enum and key details, so it does not reach 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'run an on-demand AI visibility scan (scan=ai_visibility)', and clarifies it is a GEO measurement. It does not explicitly distinguish this paid scan action from sibling read tools like get_visibility or get_scoreboard, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear usage context by stating this is an on-demand paid scan requiring write scope and a paid plan or active trial. It also explains daily caps and same-day replay behavior, but it does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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