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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the 'single-query' scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, provider behavior, or other behavioral details. 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?

One sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 simple 3-param tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: it doesn't describe the response format, provider selection implications, or how this differs from audit_domain. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 descriptions cover domain and query, while provider has only enum values with no description. The tool description does not mention provider or explain defaults, so it doesn't compensate for the missing provider description. However, the enum values (exa, perplexity) are self-explanatory.

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 a specific action: 'Quick single-query AI visibility check for a domain.' This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_domain (comprehensive audit) and suggest_queries (query generation), 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 'quick' and 'single-query' wording implies it is for lightweight, focused checks rather than full audits, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of audit_domain or audit_domain_premium, nor does it offer exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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