ai-visibility-scanner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scan a competitor' suggests some form of web scanning, but there is no disclosure of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The impact on the system is unclear.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is efficient, though it sacrifices substance for brevity. It earns its place as a purpose statement, but lacks additional helpful structure.

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?

With three parameters (two required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the meaning of 'url' vs 'competitor_url', what max_pages controls, or the format of the comparison result. A more complete description would explain these aspects.

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 description adds no parameter details. It mentions 'competitor' which relates to competitor_url, but omits the roles of 'url' and 'max_pages'. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 scans a competitor and returns a side-by-side comparison, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_website which likely scans a single site. The verb and resource are specific, though it could be clearer about what is being compared.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or alternatives such as scan_website or get_score_breakdown. The description implies a comparison scenario but fails to provide context.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'get detailed line-item breakdown,' which implies a read operation, but it does not confirm side effects, authorization requirements, or what a 'line-item' actually consists of. The term 'detailed' is vague and does not explain the return structure or any potential errors.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized, but given the lack of other context, it could earn its place better by including a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, but it does not. The 'checks' parameter is undefined, and the description does not clarify how the dimension enum affects the breakdown. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional implicit knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'score dimension,' which maps to the 'dimension' parameter, but it does not explain the 'checks' parameter at all. Given the low schema coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters, and it fails to do so fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies a clear resource: a detailed line-item breakdown for a score dimension. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_scan, refresh_scan, scan_website, and submit_lead, none of which perform a similar breakdown function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred over its siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Re-scan with updated parameters' without mentioning side effects, permissions, or what happens to previous results, providing no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 sentence without fluff, which is structurally concise. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, offering minimal information relative to what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool. It does not explain the scan process, return values, or edge cases, leaving critical gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the url or max_pages parameters. 'Updated parameters' is generic and does not clarify which parameters are involved or their semantic meaning.

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 'Re-scan with updated parameters,' which identifies the verb (re-scan) and indicates a repeat scan with new settings. However, it does not specify what is being scanned or how it differs from the sibling tool scan_website, making its purpose somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scan_website, use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety info. It adds context about the output components (scores, findings, recommendations) but does not disclose the max_pages crawling limitation or any other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, each with a clear purpose: the action, the return values, and the additional findings. It is front-loaded with the core intent and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of what the scan returns but omits the max_pages limitation (default 5), which means 'any website' is not fully scanned. Since there is no output schema, this gap could lead to incorrect expectations about scan scope.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, as it focuses on the overall purpose rather than parameter-specific details like industry or max_pages.

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 scans websites for AI visibility and marketing health, listing specific output dimensions (GEO, Multimodal, Agent-Ready, Marketing Health) that distinguish it from sibling tools like compare_scan and refresh_scan.

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 the tool (when you need a website's AI visibility and marketing health scores), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools such as compare_scan or refresh_scan.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'submit,' implying a write/mutation, but omits side effects, idempotency, return values, or required permissions.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters. It is front-loaded but not appropriately sized.

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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a complex parameter set, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to convey what happens after submission, result format, or how to interpret required fields.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters, but the description adds zero explanation for any of them. It does not clarify the meaning of 'tier,' 'scan_url,' or 'findings_count,' despite schema coverage being 0%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and names the resource ('lead for service booking'), providing clear scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like scan_website or compare_scan, which are read/analyze operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, list exclusions, or explain prerequisites.

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