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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: results are open candidates only, sorted highest score first, and when the feature is not enabled the list is empty with an explanatory note. The full score composition (40% visibility gap / 35% commercial intent / 25% rival citations, ±20% for search demand) is disclosed, which an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Purpose and use case are front-loaded before the return-field inventory, and every sentence carries information. The score-weighting breakdown is dense and parenthetical but earns its space because there is no output schema; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating returned fields, their types/domains, and the empty-result case. The one remaining gap is volume/limit behavior — how many candidates come back and whether the list can be truncated — which an agent planning around the result would want.

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 and its schema description is fully covered (100%), so the schema carries the semantics of siteId, including the connected-app vs API-key distinction. The description adds no additional meaning about siteId beyond the implicit "a site's tracking" framing, so the 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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource framing ("Questions worth adding to a site's tracking, best first") and explicitly separates itself from list_prompts (already tracked) and get_prompt_templates (country/language/persona variants). An agent can distinguish this from all 25 siblings 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 an explicit triggering question ("what should we track next?") and names the alternatives with the condition that selects each: list_prompts for what is tracked, get_prompt_templates for variants, add_prompt to actually track a candidate. It also states the prerequisite for the follow-up action (add_prompt needs write access).

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