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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it defines waitingToStart semantics, explains that estimatedMinutesLeft is an estimate with two estimateBasis modes ('measured pace' vs 'queue position') and may be null, and contrasts background (server-advanced every few minutes) versus app-tab scans. This is exactly the runtime behavior an agent needs and cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields before moving to estimate caveats and input sourcing. Every sentence carries information, but the closing sentence about a queued scan waiting for the running scan restates the earlier waitingToStart explanation, adding mild redundancy to an already long paragraph.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return shape — and it does, enumerating status, completed/failed check counts, timestamps, last error or budget pause, waitingToStart, estimatedMinutesLeft, and estimateBasis. For a zero-required-parameter status tool, nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret the result is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds disambiguation the schema lacks: jobId comes from run_scan, and projectId/clientId resolve to 'that project's most recent scan,' with clientId implicitly selecting the newest AI-Visibility project. It clarifies the precedence between the three optional identifiers, though it never states what happens if multiple or none are supplied.

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 and resource — reporting the progress/status of an AI-visibility scan — and immediately enumerates the fields it returns (status values, checks finished/failed, timestamps, last error). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling run_scan, which starts a scan rather than reporting on one.

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?

Gives explicit invocation context: 'Pass jobId from run_scan, or projectId/clientId for that project's most recent scan,' which tells the agent exactly how to obtain the identifier. It also explains queued-scan behavior so the agent knows a queued result is normal, not an error. It stops short of naming when NOT to use this versus alternatives such as get_ai_visibility_metrics, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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