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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals important behavioral traits: setting is free, only credits above the included 15 are billed, narrowing engines is cost-free but non-refundable, and omitting the body triggers a pure read. These details materially change how an agent should invoke the tool and what it should expect afterward.

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 compact: three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and cost/read-mode behavior following logically. Every sentence contributes unique information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or the schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description still explains what a set call returns (the credits drawn above the 15-question threshold) and what the read mode returns (config and quote ladder). It also covers cost behavior, refund policy, and the optionality of all parameters via 'Omit the body'. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by mapping 'engines, questions per scan, cadence' directly to the parameters and by explaining the billing threshold and the non-refundable nature of narrowing. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Set how AI visibility scans run' and enumerates the three mutable dimensions: engines, questions per scan, cadence. It also distinguishes a read mode via 'Omit the body to read the config and quote ladder, changing nothing', making the tool's dual purpose unambiguous. This clearly separates it from sibling loop-configuration tools.

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 to use the tool: configure visibility scan settings, or read the current config and quote ladder by omitting the body. It also communicates cost-relevant guidance: 'Free to set', 'Narrowing costs nothing and refunds nothing'. It does not explicitly name a specific sibling alternative, but the 'Scope config, Founder tier' phrase mitigates that gap.

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