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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the per-call cap of 100 and that the operation consumes the plan's prompt quota. It stops short of describing partial-failure, quota-exceeded, or duplicate handling.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the batch capability and quota impact are front-loaded.

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 batch mutation with nested per-monitor objects and a quota side effect, and no output schema to lean on, the description omits what happens on limit overflow, whether the batch is atomic or partial, and any deduplication rules. Annotations cover safety only, so the description under-delivers for this complexity.

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 0% across 3 required parameters, and the nested 'monitors' objects carry 8 fields (engines, question, keywords, brandAliases, frequency, etc.) with no documentation. The description only echoes the 100-item cap already present as maxItems, leaving projectId/siteId and monitor field intent unexplained.

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 ('Add ... prompts') with a clear batch scope ('up to 100 at once'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling create_ai_visibility_prompt. It doesn't name the alternative explicitly, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit batch framing, and no named alternatives such as create_ai_visibility_prompt or suggest_ai_visibility_prompts. The quota note is a constraint, not usage routing.

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