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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) by disclosing ownership semantics (tracker bound to the caller's API key), the auth path (x-api-key header or OAuth endpoint URL), and a documented error taxonomy with remediation for each code. The brand_limit=5 detail tells the agent a real constraint affecting retry decisions.

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 trigger condition, then parameters, then return value, then errors — a sensible order with no filler. The error clause is a dense run-on that packs three codes into one sentence, which costs a little readability but every clause carries information.

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 creation tool with a non-idempotent write and API-key identity, the description covers the prerequisites (auth), the output needed for the next step (brand_id and prompt ids for add_round), and failure modes. The output schema covers return shape, so nothing an agent needs to call this 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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the p1/p2 id mapping to add_round. The description restates the 1-to-25 prompt bound and the brand/domain/competitors roles without adding syntax or format detail the schema lacks; 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 ('create' / 'tracker' for weekly AI answer share) and immediately carves out the distinct case versus its sibling: 'tracked week by week, not scored once' contrasts with score_answer_share. An agent can pick this over the alternatives without opening a 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?

Begins with an explicit trigger ('Call this when a user wants...') and gives a when-not in the contrast to one-off scoring, plus a recovery rule for subscription_required ('give the user checkout_url instead of retrying'). The alternative is implied rather than named, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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