Prioritized fixes

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the subscription requirement, payment terms, and the fallback flow, which are behavioral traits not visible in annotations.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose, usage triggers, return value, and pricing/fallback info. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core function.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the conditions for using it. It also informs the agent of a required subscription and a free alternative, making the context 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% with a clear description for the only parameter (domain). The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is 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: getting specific, prioritized fixes for AI visibility and audit scores. It distinguishes itself from siblings by linking to audits (run_audit) and offering a fallback to get_sample_audit, making its unique role explicit.

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 gives explicit triggers ('how do I fix this,' 'what should I change') and states when to call an alternative (get_sample_audit) if the user lacks a subscription. This is excellent usage guidance.

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