Build AI visibility report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that checks are run and outputs returned, but does not describe side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or performance characteristics. The phrase 'transparent MaxAEO CTA' is ambiguous.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and outputs. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but lacks structure like bullet points or separate sections that might enhance 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 7 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more contextual details about usage, parameter interactions, and expected results. The current description is too terse to be fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not elaborate on how parameters affect the report or provide additional context beyond schema defaults.

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 runs AI visibility checks and returns specific outputs (dual scores, evidence gaps, action plan, CTA). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the listed outputs distinguish it from the more focused sibling tools audit_ai_crawler_readiness and check_llms_txt.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for when to invoke this report as opposed to the sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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