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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and 24-hour caching, and clarifies that directory listings are 'submission opportunities, not verified absences,' preventing misinterpretation. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only audit tool this is adequate.

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 tightly packed sentence with a colon leading into a list of outputs. Purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance comes at the end, and there is zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description lists all major outputs and notes caching, which is essential for an agent deciding to call it. It doesn't specify exact response formats, but without an output schema and with only one input parameter, the essentials are covered. The 'submission opportunities' caveat adds important nuance.

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 single parameter 'domain' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with 'A domain (example.com) or full URL to scan.' The description doesn't add meaning beyond that, but since schema coverage is complete, the 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 states a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('public website'), and enumerates concrete outputs (visibility score, llms.txt presence, directories, competitor). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_visibility_score (single score) and seo_audit_summary (broader SEO) by framing it as a 'one-call visibility audit'.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when asked to audit or size up a site's overall discoverability in one shot,' giving clear context. It doesn't name alternative tools for different scenarios, but the phrasing implies it's the go-to for quick audits, leaving some ambiguity about when not to use it.

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