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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable context about return content (dollar estimate, confidence grade, factors, methodology) and an operational rule to always report confidence, going beyond the 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?

Two tightly constructed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by return value details and an important operational instruction, with 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?

The description covers what the tool does, its inputs, return values, and a usage caveat. Since annotations cover safety and there is no output schema, only a bit more detail on when to prefer this over alternatives would make it fully complete.

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 the schema fully documents parameters; the description adds no parameter-specific details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers parameter 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb (estimate) and resource (monthly app revenue) and the inputs it uses (installs, ratings, category benchmarks). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like sonar_app_aso_score or sonar_portfolio, but its unique estimation purpose is evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings (e.g., sonar_app_aso_score, sonar_portfolio) or prerequisites is provided; the only implied usage is about communicating confidence, not about selecting the tool.

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