Prioritized fixes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly reinforces a non-destructive profile without contradiction. It adds substantial beyond-annotation behavior: the paid subscription requirement, free trial terms, payment method requirement, and instruction to fall back to get_sample_audit. It also discloses the return shape ('ranked actions with expected impact').

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage triggers, then moves into subscription details and fallback routing. It is somewhat long due to pricing and trial terms, but every sentence serves a functional purpose—no filler. It earns a strong score, though tightening the subscription wording could make it even more concise.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, the subscription prerequisite, and the alternative path for users without access. Nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, which is already well-documented. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get specific, prioritized fixes to raise a website's AI visibility and audit scores.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing 'prioritized fixes' and 'ranked actions with expected impact,' and explicitly names get_sample_audit as a different, free alternative. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers: 'when someone asks...' or 'after an audit surfaces issues.' It also provides a when-not-to-use and alternative: 'if the user doesn't have one, call get_sample_audit first.' This is exemplary usage guidance with a clear conditional route to a sibling tool.

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