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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the return format (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view), cost implications (free default vs BYO for Anthropic), and the fact that it makes API calls to Anthropic if key is provided. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, but the description enriches agent understanding.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: main function, default vs extended usage, and example use cases. No wasted 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (per-model object with score/confidence/signals/raw_response plus combined view). It covers input parameters, optional auth, and usage contexts. For a probing tool with rich annotations, this is complete.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: it specifies the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b), explains that `_apiKey` is passed straight through to Anthropic, and that `context` disambiguates. This justifies a 4.

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's purpose: 'Probe one or more LLMs for what they know... and score visibility (0-100) per model.' The verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs knowledge' are specific, and the scoring quantifies the result. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which likely have different scopes.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains when to use optional parameters like `_apiKey` for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to very similar siblings, which would earn a 5.

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