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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by defining pooled visibility as mentioned runs ÷ total runs and by disclosing that results include totalAvailable and a truncated flag when capped.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence adds useful information about return shape or parameter scope, with no filler.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It explains the returned metrics and truncation behavior even though no output schema exists.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema, including q, days, market, clientId, projectId, and activeOnly. The description confirms that projectId or clientId selects the scope but does not add material semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists tracked AI-visibility prompts for a project or client. It also distinguishes the result from a simple name list by explaining the pooled visibility metric, run counts, and engines included per prompt.

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 clear that the tool requires either projectId or clientId, which is useful guidance given that neither is marked required in the schema. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as suggest_prompts or get_prompt_details, so the when-not guidance is absent, but the usage context is clear.

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