Get AI visibility score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by describing the no-website scenario (returns setup guidance and empty payload) and explicitly warns against fabricating dates/scores. This enriches the agent's understanding of potential response variations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, and finally covers the edge case. Every clause serves a purpose, and the structure flows logically from what → when → special condition. It is concise and well-organized.

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 zero parameters and a defined output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, usage context, and the special no-website behavior. It also preempts hallucination by instructing the agent not to invent dates or scores. Nothing essential is missing for a safe and correct call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. It doesn't add anything specific about parameters, but that's expected—the schema is empty and the description focuses on the operation and response behavior.

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 function: 'Get overall AI visibility for the account website' and specifies the exact outputs (visibility score, delta, insight). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as a 'high-level snapshot before drilling into topics, prompts, or competitors,' which unambiguously differentiates it from list_topics, list_prompts, etc.

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 guidance: 'Use this for a high-level snapshot before drilling into topics, prompts, or competitors.' It also covers the edge case when no website is configured, directing the agent to follow server instructions rather than inventing data. This is actionable and clear.

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