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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the output structure (dollar estimate, confidence grade with factors, methodology) and instructing to always communicate confidence alongside the number. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information: the first covers what and how, the second covers output and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple input (3 params, 2 required, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers purpose, inputs, and output structure. A minor gap is not specifying edge cases (e.g., missing data leading to low confidence), but overall sufficient for an estimation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides (store, store_id, country). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Estimate monthly revenue for an app, based on install counts, ratings, and category benchmarks', providing a specific verb ('estimate'), resource ('revenue'), and key inputs. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sonar_app_keywords or sonar_app_reviews, which focus on different app metrics.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when needing revenue estimates) and emphasizes communicating confidence. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it (e.g., for very new apps with no data) or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks.

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