get_prompt_visibility

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

With readOnlyHint=true and no destructive hint, the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds that the metrics are per-engine and per-location, which is useful context, but it does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or required authentication. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler, exactly as expected.

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 lack of an output schema, missing parameter semantics, and only sparse annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not cover usage context, parameter meaning, or return behavior, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of query_id or measurement_window_id. The phrase 'single tracked prompt' hints that query_id identifies the prompt, but measurement_window_id is entirely unexplained, leaving a significant gap.

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 returns visibility metrics, further specifying 'per-engine and per-location' and 'single tracked prompt'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_visibility_overview and list_competitor_visibility, even without naming them.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions, so the agent has no basis to choose it over similar siblings.

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