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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: per-query credit cost (USD 0.00075 per indexed result), weekly vs watch-package rate limits, the one-index-check-plus-one-search-per-query model, and the flag that titles/snippets are third-party data. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false despite the 'Check' framing, but the metered-run language largely accounts for it.

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?

Front-loaded and information-dense, but the omitted-queries fallback is stated twice in near-identical wording ('Uses the saved searches or the ones the page suggests when queries is omitted' then 'Send {} to use the saved searches, or the searches the page title and H1 suggest'). That redundancy costs a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: positions, competing sites, plain recommendations. Combined with cost and quota disclosures and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of explicit alternative-tool routing is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by defining the defaulting behavior when queries is omitted versus supplied, which is semantic information the field description ('Optional. One to ten searches') does not carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a page appears in AI search for each target query, at what position, who outranks it, plus recommendations. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ai_search_history (past runs) and save_ai_search_queries (managing query sets).

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?

Explains the query-input branches precisely: omit queries to fall back to saved searches or title/H1-suggested searches, or pass queries to choose explicitly. It also discloses when the tool is usable in practice via weekly/daily run and search quotas, but never names a sibling alternative for the full visibility-history use case.

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