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

The description goes far beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explicitly warning 'SPENDS MONEY,' requiring a paid plan/trial, and detailing rate limits (daily/monthly caps, one scan per type per product per day) and idempotent replay behavior on repeat attempts.

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 a compact, information-dense paragraph with every sentence earning its place: cost warning, purpose, prerequisites, limits, and idempotency behavior. It is appropriately front-loaded with 'SPENDS MONEY' and wastes no words.

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?

The description thoroughly covers operational details (cost, scope, idempotency, rate limits, per-day behavior) that are essential for safe use. However, it does not describe what the tool returns or how to retrieve the scan result (e.g., via get_visibility), which is a noticeable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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% with both parameters fully described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter information—it merely repeats the scan value and idempotency-key requirement in prose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the explanatory burden.

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 clearly states the tool's verb ('run'), resource ('an on-demand AI visibility scan'), and the exact scan type ('ai_visibility'). It explains the purpose (GEO measurement of answer engines) and distinguishes it from a read-only alternative like get_visibility by emphasizing it's a paid refresh operation.

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 provides strong usage context: requires 'write' scope, a paid plan or trial, an Idempotency-Key, and is bounded by credit/caps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'when not to use,' but it implies this is a deliberate, cost-incurring action rather than a routine read.

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