audit_ai_visibility

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

The description details the actions: homepage scrape, checking meta robots, JSON-LD, sitemap, llms.txt. It also states output format (0-100 score with reasons). No annotations are provided, but the description gives good insight into behavior.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and lists components efficiently. No wasted words.

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 simple input and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality and output. It could mention potential errors or limitations, but overall 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 parameter description for 'domain'. The tool description does not add new information beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 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 it is a 'Composite AI-visibility audit for a domain', listing specific components and outputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_ai_bot_access' (a component) and 'compare_competitors' (different purpose).

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 implies usage for a comprehensive AI-visibility audit and mentions combining 'check_ai_bot_access', suggesting to use the sibling tool for a simpler check. However, it lacks explicit when-not or usage exclusions.

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