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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: setting is free, only usage above 15 included questions is billed, narrowing costs nothing and refunds nothing, and omitting the body reads without changing anything.

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 description is front-loaded with the action and parameters, and most sentences carry distinct information about scope, cost, and read mode. It is slightly wordy and dense in the billing sentence, but every component earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value as the credits drawn above the included 15 questions. It also covers both write and read modes, cost behavior, and parameter scope. Minor missing details like output formatting or persistence behavior prevent a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by linking engines and question count to billing: 'returns the credits a scan draws ABOVE the included 15 questions' and 'Narrowing costs nothing and refunds nothing.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set how AI visibility scans run: engines, questions per scan, cadence.' It also distinguishes this from siblings by scoping it to 'config' and Founder tier, and clarifies a read mode via 'Omit the body to read the config and quote ladder.'

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 description gives clear context for when the tool applies: configuring AI visibility scans, scoped to 'config' and Founder tier. It explains the read-only usage mode but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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