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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the audit uses public data only, requires no logins or analytics access, installs nothing, is reviewed by a person, and does not return a score. These are important behavioral traits that the annotations do not cover, and there is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, or destructiveHint=false.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then layers in constraints, alternative routing, and return behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no wasted 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 six-parameter tool with a nested contact object, an enum track, and no output schema, the description covers what is necessary: what is audited, what data is used, how the result is delivered, and that no score is returned. It is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters including nested contact fields and the track enum. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Request a free audit' of AI visibility. It also distinguishes the request from submit_campaign_brief and implies a human-reviewed process rather than an instant score, so an agent can tell it apart from related siblings.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a client wants to know why assistants do not mention them,' and names an alternative: 'use submit_campaign_brief when they already want to buy media.' It also clarifies that the audit is free and non-committal, which prevents misuse.

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