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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive status, so the bar is lower. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond structured data: the tool requires an Indie plan (trial counts), which an agent needs to know before calling. It does not mention pagination or response limits, but the plan gating is valuable added context.

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 the 'read this FIRST' instruction are front-loaded, and every listed item corresponds to returned data, so the length is largely earned. The opening sentence is a dense enumeration that could be trimmed, but there is no filler.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, covering every section the dashboard renders. The plan requirement and the single-call framing complete what an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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 both parameters (days, app_id) are already fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning about the days window or app_id format beyond what the schema provides, and even the 7-day deltas it mentions are output, not input semantics.

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 resource and scope: the computed dashboard scoreboard for one app in a single call, then enumerates its contents (visibility index, share of voice, keyword counts, movement, opportunities). It clearly positions itself as the aggregated answer versus raw rank history. It does not name which specific sibling (e.g., sonar_app_aso_score or sonar_app_rankings) it supersedes, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Read this FIRST when asked how an app is doing' gives explicit triggering context, and 'you don't need to recompute anything from raw rank history' implies the alternative (rank history) to avoid. No hard exclusions or explicit named alternatives are given, but the usage context is clear.

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