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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what data is returned in each mode (mentions, citations, Share of Voice, credit weight, history). It does not mention freshness, pagination, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only getter this is partially acceptable.

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 concise sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose and then structured by parameter mode. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given there is no output schema FM, the description must explain return values, and it does so at a high level. However, it stops short of describing the response structure, how results are ordered, or how project_id and prompt_id are resolved. Enough for basic use, but an agent would still be uncertain about exact output shape.

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 50%: prompt_id has no schema description FK. The description compensates well by explaining the semantic difference between omitting prompt_id and providing it, and by listing the returned metrics. It does not specify prompt_id origin, but that is a minor gap.

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 retrieves AI presence data for a project and distinguishes two modes based on prompt_id: aggregated latest results per source, or historical results for a specific prompt. This is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool run_ai_visibility_check.

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 when to use it with or without prompt_id by explaining the two behavior modes. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like run_ai_visibility_check, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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