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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real semantic context: the stats window concept, the distinction between `runsCiting` (runs citing at least once) and `citations` (total), and that only the freshest excerpt is returned. It stops short of noting behavior for invalid/untracked promptIds.

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?

Three dense but front-loaded sentences with no filler; the parenthetical definitions of `runsCiting` and `citations` are the kind of clarifying detail that earns its space. The core purpose leads and the ID sourcing trails as a usage note.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so substantively (visibility, competitor counts, citation counts, excerpt). Remaining gaps are structural — the shape/nesting of the response and default window behavior are left implicit.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions including the default 30 / max 180 window, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that promptId originates from list_prompts and that a window applies, adding little beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full detail for one tracked prompt') and immediately enumerates the payload: per-engine pooled visibility, named competitors with counts, cited domains, and freshest answer excerpt. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_prompts, which only enumerates 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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required ID originates ('`promptId` comes from list_prompts'), giving a clear entry condition. It does not, however, contrast with adjacent analytics tools such as get_ai_visibility_metrics or get_citations, so when-not guidance is absent.

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