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

Annotations already declare the write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: the call consumes a quota ('Counts against the plan's prompt limit'). It omits failure behavior, idempotency, and permission requirements, so it is helpful but not rich.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler; the quota constraint is a useful trailing detail. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly what leaves the complex parameter structure undocumented.

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 create tool built around a required nested object with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent has no guidance on how to populate monitor.question, engines, frequency, keywords, or brandAliases, nor on what a successful creation returns.

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% and the tool requires a complex nested 'monitor' object with five required sub-fields (question, keywords, brandAliases, engines, frequency) plus projectId and siteId. The description adds essentially nothing about these — 'across AI engines' only faintly gestures at the engines field. This is a large documentation gap the description fails to close.

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+resource ('Add a prompt to track') and names the domain ('across AI engines'), which is enough to distinguish a create from list/update/delete siblings. It does not, however, differentiate from the close sibling bulk_create_ai_visibility_prompts or suggest_ai_visibility_prompts, so an agent still has to infer which create variant applies.

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 offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The mention of a plan prompt limit hints at a cost constraint but never tells the agent to check get_plan_usage first or to prefer bulk_create_ai_visibility_prompts for multiple prompts, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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