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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async nature (runs in background, results after minutes), the paid cost (consumes 1 unit of monthly quota and 1 MCP action), and the per-prompt cap. This is strong transparency for side effects. It doesn't mention failure modes or edge cases, but the core behaviors 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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It then adds cost and usage information without redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the structure is clean.

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 that triggers an async, paid operation, the description covers the key context: what it does, where results land, cost implications, and how to check remaining quota. It doesn't describe the immediate return value or error handling, but since there's no output schema and the results are deferred, this is acceptable. It's nearly complete for the agent's decision-making needs.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that prompt_id is optional and filters to a specific prompt, with the default being all active prompts. However, it does not explain project_id beyond the implicit project context, and doesn't detail value formats or constraints. The description adds meaning for prompt_id but not fully for project_id, leaving a partial 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 starts a background AI Presence check for project prompts, optionally filtered by prompt_id. It distinguishes itself from get_ai_visibility (which retrieves results) and uses a specific verb ('Avvia') and resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly mentions that results appear in get_ai_visibility after a few minutes, implying the correct workflow (use this to start, then get_ai_visibility to retrieve). It also instructs to use get_usage to check remaining credits before use, addressing the paid-action context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state 'when not to use', but the guidance is clear enough.

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