get_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auth requirements, plan restrictions, and the fact that it returns only the most recent day (not a history). It also states the output format (compact JSON) and that it's designed to be read directly. For a read tool with no annotations, this is solid coverage, though it doesn't detail all response fields exhaustively.

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 with the highest-value identifier ('LATEST DAILY TRACKING GRID'). Densely informative throughout — each sentence adds value covering engines, per-cell status, visibility score, target audience, plan constraints. Slightly long but every segment 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?

For a read-only reporting tool with a single documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive coverage: input format, engines tracked, per-cell semantics, companion tool, auth/plan requirements. Could add pagination or date-range behavior, but for a single-brand daily snapshot it's largely complete.

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% and the description reiterates the 'brand id OR bare domain' format with an example ('acme.com'), which matches the schema description. The description adds the context that the brand id comes from list_brands, slightly enriching beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Clearly describes the specific verb+resource: returns a daily per-prompt × per-engine tracking grid for a brand. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming get_engine_answers as the tool for viewing what engines actually said. Strong differentiation.

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?

States it requires a signed-in account and works on Starter and up, with the free trial having no MCP access — useful constraints. Explains when it applies (latest daily grid) and directs users to get_engine_answers for engine-level detail. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' phrasing but provides clear context.

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