get_visibility_overview

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds context about the metric dimensions (brand, engine, measurement window) but does not disclose return format, filtering behavior, or consequences of omitting optional parameters.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No filler or redundancy; every word adds meaning.

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 doesn't explain what the returned metrics look like or how the optional parameters affect results. For a low-complexity tool with two parameters, this is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps around result structure and use cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps brand_id and measurement_window_id to 'per brand' and 'measurement window', but provides no detail on optionality, expected formats, or how the output varies when parameters are omitted.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('visibility overview'), and clarifies scope as 'per brand and engine for a measurement window.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_workspace_overview or get_prompt_visibility, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 description implies usage when brand/engine-level visibility metrics are needed, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_workspace_overview or list_competitor_visibility. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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