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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses extensive return details: per-source brand mentions, URL citations, Share of Voice, credit weight, site_url_cited, candidate_page, and null meaning. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only get tool, the output disclosure is substantial.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then details outputs. It packs necessary information without fluff, but the run-on structure with semicolons and nested clauses could be clearer.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns; it does so thoroughly, covering both modes and edge cases. It also explains prompt_id behavior. For a two-parameter read tool, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly, though sibling routing is absent.

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 coverage is 50% (prompt_id undocumented in schema). The description compensates by explaining exactly what prompt_id does: without it, you get overview; with it, you get history. For project_id, the schema already defines it, so the description adds significant meaning for the undocumented parameter.

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 tool returns AI presence data for a project, detailing the two modes based on whether prompt_id is provided. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like run_ai_visibility_check, so it lacks 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?

It describes the two modes based on prompt_id, which provides some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus run_ai_visibility_check or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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