Start/stop monitoring

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: subscription/payment requirements, the 7-day free trial, that it establishes history for get_changes, and that stopping is done via 'enabled': false. It does not specify what happens to history when stopping, but the annotations cover the destructive nature enough that this is not a major gap.

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 dense but well-structured: first sentence gives the core action, second gives use cases, third explains history relationship, and fourth handles subscription prerequisites. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the subscription sentence is longer and more complex than ideal.

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 mutating nature, lack of output schema, and subscription prerequisite, the description covers the critical context: when to use, subscription requirement, alternative action, and relationship to get_changes. However, it does not describe what the tool returns on success or whether stopping deletes history, which would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema documents domain, cadence, and enabled with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond referencing 'start' and 'stop' which maps to enabled. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb+resource: 'Start (or stop) ongoing monitoring of a website's AI visibility on a schedule.' It explicitly contrasts with 'a one-off check,' distinguishing it from siblings like run_audit and get_ai_visibility. It also links to get_changes as the consumer of the established history.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers: 'when someone wants to "monitor," "track," "watch," or "get alerted about" a site.' It also states when not to use it ('rather than a one-off check') and gives an alternative action: call get_sample_audit first if the user lacks a subscription. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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