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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is a computed, rank-history-derived read ('already computed from rank history') and it carries a plan precondition ('Requires an Indie plan (trial counts)'). It does not describe rate limits or response shape, keeping it below 5.

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 is front-loaded before the metric enumeration, and every listed element serves to convey scope. The single dense run-on sentence is long and could be segmented, but it avoids filler and does not pad beyond useful content.

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 usefully enumerates the return contents, which an agent needs. Combined with the plan precondition and the when-to-use cue, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Response types/units and any pagination behavior remain unstated, keeping it from a 5.

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 (app_id with its UUID/not-a-store-id note, and the days 7-90 window) are already fully documented. The description mentions 7-day deltas and improvements, echoing but not extending the days parameter. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: the dashboard's computed scoreboard for one app, delivered in a single call, and enumerates the exact contents (visibility index, share of voice, keyword counts, improvements/drops, opportunity list). This makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g., sonar_app_aso_score or sonar_app_rankings) it differs from, so it does not fully reach the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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?

Provides a clear trigger: 'Use it when asked how an app is doing.' That gives an agent a concrete context for selection. It does not, however, name alternatives or say when NOT to use it (e.g., versus raw rank or keyword tools), so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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