MeSquared Visibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it runs scans and compares, which is consistent. However, no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth needs) is provided beyond 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise and efficient, though it could be split for slightly better readability.

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's simplicity (two params, output schema present), the description adequately covers the main outputs and purpose. It does not detail prerequisites or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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% with descriptions for both URL parameters. The description adds context about 'business websites' and example formats, but this only marginally enhances the already clear schema.

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 verb (run and compare) and the resource (public-site AI readiness scans for two business websites), and specifies the outputs (scores, score gap, trust/readability summaries, top on-site issues). This effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_visibility' and 'visibility_audit_info'.

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 usage for comparing two websites but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. No when-not or alternative usage guidance is provided.

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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by detailing the output (0-100 score, five dimensions, top issues) and implying it is non-destructive and lightweight. No contradictions 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, front-loading the action and resource, then detailing the output. Every word serves a purpose; no filler or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description need not detail return values further. It covers the scan's purpose, scope (single URL, business website), output components, and score range. It is sufficiently complete for a quick scan tool, though it could briefly contrast with compare_visibility.

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 schema already describes the url parameter well ('The business website URL to scan, such as example.com.'). The description reinforces it is for a single business website. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 runs a quick public-site AI readiness scan for one business website, specifying the return of a 0-100 score across multiple dimensions. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_visibility (which likely compares multiple scans) and visibility_audit_info (which may provide documentation or detailed info).

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 this tool is for a single website scan via the phrase 'for one business website.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names provide some context. The 'quick' qualifier suggests it is for lightweight checks.

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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the tool explains rather than modifies anything, which aligns with annotations. No contradiction, but the description does not provide substantial new behavioral insight beyond 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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more structure or detail, though the simplicity works for a help tool.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (assumed present), the description sufficiently defines the tool's role as an informational resource. It does not detail return values, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying what the tool explains (scan measures, exclusions, tool usage), compensating for the absence of parameters.

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 that this tool explains what the visibility quick scan measures, what it doesn't measure, and how to use scan tools. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools 'scan_visibility' and 'compare_visibility' which perform actual scanning and comparison.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to explain the scan and how to use tools. This guides the agent to use it when users ask for explanations or guidance, rather than performing scans. However, it lacks explicit exclusion of other use cases.

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