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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the research payload, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about freshness, per-prompt granularity limits, or how the research is scoped to the site.

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?

One sentence with a compact parenthetical enumeration of return fields; no filler. Front-loading is acceptable, though the absence of an explicit verb makes the opening slightly less actionable than it could be.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned concepts, which compensates for the missing return documentation. It stops short of complete routing guidance among the AI-visibility siblings, which is the main gap.

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 100% for the single site_id parameter (UUID of the site), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format, defaulting, or scoping detail beyond what the schema already states — 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 names the resource (per-prompt AI research for a site) and the payload fields (target share, leader, rivals, opportunity bucket), so an agent can tell what it returns. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it does not distinguish itself from AI-visibility siblings like get_ai_visibility or get_ai_overview_presence.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent AI/visibility siblings in the list. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing hints — the agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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