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

The description begins with 'WRITE tool', clearly labeling the operation type. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which are consistent with a state-changing creation tool. The description adds value by naming the required plan tier and API scope, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: labeling as write tool, defining a product, and noting return values and prerequisites. Slightly dense but no fluff. Could be more compact by merging the first two sentences.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned values (product id and Sonar app ids). It also explains the cross-store product concept, which is critical domain knowledge. The only minor gap is not explaining what happens if the product already exists or what errors may occur, but the schema and annotations are otherwise adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already documents (apps array with store, store_id, country; optional name). It doesn't elaborate on formats or defaults in a way that surpasses the schema, so it stays at baseline.

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 'creates a product in the caller's Sonar workspace and starts tracking the given app(s)'. It defines what a product is (cross-store unit of iOS/Android apps) and distinguishes this creation action from the many sibling tools like sonar_delete_product, sonar_track_app, or sonar_list_products.

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 explicitly notes the requirement for an Indie plan (trial counts) and an API key with write scope. It also explains that the returned product id and Sonar app ids are needed by two other tools (sonar_track_keywords and sonar_track_competitor), providing context for when to use this tool. No explicit when-not alternatives are given, but the purpose and prerequisites are clear.

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