MeSquared Visibility

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the tool performs public-site scans (network access) and clarifies the scope of comparison (readiness, not live rankings), which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 output schema exists and annotations are strong, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, and limitations. It mentions the types of outputs (aggregate scores, evidence, signals, issues) without needing to detail return structure, and the exclusion clarifies edge cases.

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 100% coverage with clear descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 function: running SEO/AEO readiness scans on two websites and comparing scores, evidence, signals, and issues. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comparison of two sites, and explicitly clarifies it is not rank or citation benchmarking.

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 context that this is for comparing two business websites' readiness, and includes an exclusion ('not observed rank or live citation benchmarking'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., scan_visibility) or state when to choose this over them.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns aggregate scores and evidence, and importantly clarifies what the scan does NOT measure, preventing misuse. No contradiction with 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 two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second lists outputs and limitations. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has a simple 1-parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, output categories, and explicit non-scope items. No critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds 'for one business website' but does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'public-site SEO/AEO website-readiness scan', and scopes it to 'one business website', distinguishing it from the sibling compare_visibility. It also lists what it returns (aggregate readiness scores, evidence, signals, issues), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit exclusions: 'This does not measure observed rankings, Search Console performance, or live AI mentions/citations.' This tells the agent when not to use the tool. It also implies when to use it (single-site readiness scan), but it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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 this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it explains methodology and boundaries, not performing any scans itself. This goes beyond the annotations but doesn't provide details on response format, but the output schema covers that.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Explain the MeSquared SEO/AEO website-readiness methodology') and efficiently lists the additional scope. No words are wasted.

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 an informational tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is fully complete: it states the methodology, measurement boundaries, and usage guidance for scan tools. The output schema handles return format specifics, and the simplicity of the tool requires no further detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, and the schema is already complete with no properties.

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 the specific verb 'Explain' and clearly identifies the resource: the MeSquared SEO/AEO website-readiness methodology, its measurement boundaries, and how to use scan tools. This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools compare_visibility and scan_visibility, which actually perform scans/comparisons rather than explaining the methodology.

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 states it explains how to use the available scan tools, which implies this tool should be consulted before performing scans. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the sibling tools as alternatives.

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