check_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost range ($0.05-$0.30/run) and a cap ($0.50 default), which is critical for decision-making. It does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits or idempotency, but the read-only nature is implied by 'check'.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a cost note. It is front-loaded with purpose and then provides essential cost context. 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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and cost. It explains the engine defaults and quick mode. It does not specify the return format, but 'score' suggests a numeric result, which is likely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'quick' uses an 8-prompt pack (cheaper, faster), and that 'engines' defaults to all with keys present. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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: asking AI engines questions and scoring brand visibility. The verb 'score' and resource 'AI Visibility Score' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like 'generate_buyer_queries' or 'shopping_check' by focusing on visibility scoring.

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'Use when you want the AI Visibility Score for a domain.' It also provides cost information and default cap. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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