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

Annotations declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds substantial non-redundant behavior: plan caps (Indie 10 / Agency 50, competitors uncapped), the 403 plan_limit failure mode, the required Indie plan, and the write-scope auth requirement. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the WRITE marker and core action come first, then product definition, return value, and constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the plan/auth detail makes it longer than strictly minimal.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers return values (product id and Sonar app ids), plan caps, error behavior, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents the apps array, store enum, country, store_id, and optional name. The description reinforces the 1-2 store-versions framing but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('creates a product in the caller's Sonar workspace'), defines what a product is (cross-store unit of one iOS + one Android app), and distinguishes it from sibling tracking tools. An agent can immediately tell this is the creation entry point rather than a tracking or listing tool.

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?

Explains the workflow context clearly — this starts tracking apps and produces the ids needed by sonar_track_keywords and sonar_track_competitor — and gives plan/auth preconditions. It does not explicitly contrast against alternatives like sonar_track_app, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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