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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the replace-on-resend behavior for a week, the fact that it never queries an engine, and an enumerated error surface (api_key_required, subscription_required with checkout_url, owner_only, brand_not_found, invalid_input). The replace semantics are consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the call trigger and sequencing constraint, then parameters, then return and errors. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parameter sentence runs long and packs several facts into one clause chain.

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?

Covers the sequencing dependency, parameter semantics, replace behavior, return payload and the full error set; an output schema exists so the return summary is bonus rather than a gap. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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% and the schema already documents week's ISO format, the replace behavior, engine examples and prompt_id sourcing. The description largely restates these (prompt_id 'such as p1', engine list, links as source links) rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('record one week of AI answers on a tracker') and immediately positions itself relative to create_tracker by requiring its brand_id output. An agent can distinguish it from create_tracker and score_answer_share without opening any schema.

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 a clear sequencing precondition ('after create_tracker has returned its brand_id (never in the same step)') and a negative scope statement ('scores pasted answers and never asks an engine'). It does not explicitly name score_answer_share or say when this is preferable to it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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