Check AI visibility

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the exact output (score 0–100, per-engine breakdown, competitor info, trend data) and the subscription requirement, offering behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 paragraph that effectively front-loads the purpose and key use cases. It is concise with no redundant sentences, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for improved readability.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description adequately covers the return format (score breakdown, competitor, trends) and a key requirement (subscription). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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' has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already tells the agent what it is. The description does not add additional semantic details beyond the schema, making a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking AI visibility of a website. It specifies the action ('check'), resource ('website'), and provides concrete use cases (e.g., 'does ChatGPT recommend this business'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_report or get_recommendations.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios, such as when someone asks about AI recommendations or visibility scores. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to select this tool for immediate visibility checks.

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