Collimer AI-visibility scan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is lighter, but it still adds real value: it names the return contents (0–100 score, confidence interval, biggest gap, report URL) and discloses a gating behavior (full ranked fix plan requires a web account). It does not state latency, rate limits, or cost, but for a free read-only scan the added context is solid.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by what comes back and the free-tier caveat. Every sentence earns its place; the closing tip is a minor extra but useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value burden, and it does — enumerating the score, confidence interval, biggest gap, and report URL. Combined with annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (domain, email) are already fully documented in the schema, including the email's optionality and purpose. The description adds no param-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a free Collimer scan on a website') and what it measures (brand visibility in AI search across named engines). The scope is unambiguous and no sibling tools exist to confuse it with.

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?

Gives clear usage context (scan a site to measure AI visibility) and an explicit re-run condition: 'after the site makes changes, re-run the scan to measure the delta.' It also discloses the free-tier boundary (full fix plan unlocks with an account), though no alternative tool exists to route against.

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