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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only that results are scoped to a website, without describing pagination behavior or return characteristics.

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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The '[read]' prefix is redundant with annotations but negligible; there is no wasted prose.

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 low-complexity read/list tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits pagination defaults and does not clarify that at least one website identifier is needed, which matters given no output schema and 0% schema parameter coverage.

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 clarifies that seliee_website_id or seliee_website_uuid identifies the target website, but it says nothing about page or per_page, leaving half the parameters undocumented in prose.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the AI-visibility prompts of a website.' It is easy to distinguish from create_visibility_prompt, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_visibility_summary or run_visibility.

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?

Mentioning that it lists prompts of a website implies the usage context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no note about what happens if neither website identifier is supplied.

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