ai_visibility_check

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It adds valuable behavioral traits: 'Deterministic, no LLM tokens used' and specifies the output (score 0-100 + fixes). It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but the 'Check' verb implies a read-only, safe operation.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence delivers the core purpose; the second adds output details and a key attribute. Every word 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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the AI engines, the output format (score + fixes), and a critical behavioral note (deterministic, no LLM tokens). No significant gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter (business_name with example). Description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Check' and specific resource: how 5 major AI search engines (named explicitly) describe a business. This is highly specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like audit_website or compare_websites.

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 clearly implies use cases: checking AI search engine visibility for a business. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is narrow and evident from context.

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