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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what data is returned, what 'source' means, and clarifying cost-state semantics such as weeklyOverageCredits and perAuditProbeCredits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary listing purpose and then adds the secondary cost-state returns, with parentheticals that clarify technical terms without bloating the text.

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?

Given there is no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description provides enough detail about return contents (prompts, source, active state, brand terms, cost settings) for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't discuss pagination or response structure, but for this simple read-only list tool, the provided context is strong.

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%, and the single parameter (workspaceId) is already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation 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 lists the workspace's AI-visibility probe prompts, with specific fields (source, active state, brand detection terms) and cost state details. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the many other list tools and from seo_update_prompts.

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 makes its use case clear: when you need to view AI-visibility probe prompts and associated cost/run settings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read/list nature is evident from the phrasing and contrasts implicitly with update/run siblings, providing adequate context.

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