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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states the required plan (Indie), authorization needs (authorized account or API key with write scope), and the fact that it starts tracking the given apps. It also discloses returned ids, which is useful for workflow planning. Missing rate limits or error behaviors, but for a creation tool this is strong.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation type and scope, then workflow dependencies, then prerequisites. Every sentence adds distinct value; no redundancy.

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 write tool with a clear schema and annotations, the description covers the essential: what it does, what it returns, dependencies, and authorization/plan requirements. It lacks details on error conditions or rate limits, but these are not critical for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema means the description appropriately compensates by stating the returned values.

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 the 'apps' and 'name' parameters. The description adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., doesn't explain the 'country' default or 'store_id' format nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('creates') and resource ('a product in the caller's Sonar workspace'), and clarifies the domain concept ('cross-store unit: one iOS + one Android app'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the downstream tools (sonar_track_keywords, sonar_track_competitor) and the returned ids, which helps an agent understand its role in the workflow.

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?

Clearly signals it's a prerequisite for sonar_track_keywords and sonar_track_competitor by returning the necessary ids, effectively telling the agent when this tool is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when *not* to use it or contrast with alternatives like sonar_list_products or sonar_delete_product beyond the sibling reference.

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