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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses credit consumption tied to sources and the credit_weights field, explicitly labels the action as paid, and mentions the monthly quota and dedicated MCP cap. It does not mention return values or failure behavior, but the material side effects are well covered.

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 three purposeful sentences: main action first, then cost behavior, then a reference to get_usage. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important operational constraint (the paid nature) is prominent.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and cost implications but leaves gaps: it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., an ID or status), how failures or insufficient credits are handled, or how to choose between this and run_ai_visibility_check. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to the 'sources' parameter by linking it to credit_weights from get_ai_visibility. However, it does not clarify project_id, query, or intent_category semantics, leaving the enums and schema to carry most of the load.

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 clearly states the verb ('Crea un prompt di Presenza AI') and the resource (an AI Presence prompt), and adds that it 'avvia il primo check' (starts the first check). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling run_ai_visibility_check, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies its use case: you call this to create a new prompt and trigger the initial check. It adds cost context by warning it is a paid action and by pointing to get_usage for remaining credits, but it never states when not to use it or names alternatives for re-running checks.

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