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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well. It discloses the rate limit (3/IP/24h), scan duration (under 30s), free vs. paid-tier behavior, and the specific condition under which a cta_teaser is returned, giving the agent a realistic picture of side effects and constraints.

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 well-structured with an Args section, return-behavior summary, rate limit, and timing. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though 'free' and 'free-tier' plus 'instant' and 'under 30s' create slight redundancy without causing confusion.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what is returned, when a cta_teaser appears, and the paid-tier implication. It does not enumerate the specific engines, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke the tool and interpret the high-level result.

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 provides only names, titles, and a default, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with concrete examples and the default behavior for category, making the invocation requirements clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a free instant AI-visibility scan for a local business.' It also describes the returned artifacts (per-engine verdicts, evidence quotes, citations), making its function unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like cited_examples or cited_stats.

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 the tool should be used when a user wants a free AI-visibility scan for a local business, and it provides useful operational context such as rate limits and duration. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like cited_report or cited_stats, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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