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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that only the *latest* check per prompt/provider is used and that results are rolled up to a percentage, which an agent cannot infer from annotations. It does not say what happens when no checks exist yet.

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 short sentences, no padding, with the rollup semantics front-loaded and the identifier note second. The bracketed '[read]' prefix is a slightly odd convention but costs little.

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 does the right thing by sketching the return value (mention % per provider). Still missing for a zero-required-parameter tool: what the default scope is when no website identifier is passed, and what an empty/unrun state looks like.

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 neither parameter is documented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It does clarify that the website is identified by either the id or the uuid, which is genuine added meaning, but leaves precedence when both are supplied and the behavior when both are omitted (both are nullable, zero required) unexplained.

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 names the aggregation performed (latest check per prompt x provider rolled up to a mention % per provider), which is far more specific than the name alone and distinguishes it from run_visibility and list_visibility_prompts. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'Returns', and 'check' is domain jargon, but the shape of the output is recognizable.

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 '[read]' tag implies this is a read-only lookup of already-collected data, and 'latest check per prompt' hints that it is a summary rather than a runner. However, it never states when to use this instead of run_visibility (to collect data) or list_visibility_prompts, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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