AI search visibility

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

No annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are consistent with a credit-consuming lookup that does not alert or destroy. The description usefully adds that the tool costs credits and that cached results are free, going beyond the annotations enough to inform agent/user expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it immediately states what the brand lookup measures, then gives a clear usage trigger, then credit/caching note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted detail.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned (platforms, mention counts, entities), when to invoke it, and cost implications. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format, but the tool's behavior is otherwise well covered.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'brand', and the schema already explains it as 'Brand or domain'. The description shows why the brand is needed by the tool's purpose but does not add special format, alias, or filtering details. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the 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 the subject: how AI assistants like ChatGPT cite a brand, including platforms, mention counts, and associated entities. It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by focusing on AI assistant visibility, though it lacks a direct imperative verb such as 'returns' or 'looks up'.

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?

Explicitly gives a concrete trigger: use when the user asks 'does AI recommend us/them?'. It also adds credit-cost guidance and mentions cached results are free. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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