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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the description correctly focuses on added context: the Indie plan requirement, the three classification buckets, returned fields, and best-first opportunity ordering. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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?

Front-loads the resource and scope, then adds classification detail and next steps. It is dense but every clause carries useful information; em-dash-heavy phrasing makes it slightly less scannable than ideal.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains what is returned (popularity, difficulty, AI relevance, opportunity score) and the plan requirement. With annotations and schema covering safety and filtering, the remaining gap is minor, such as default status/pagination behavior.

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 all eight parameters, including the bucket enum and opportunity score range. The description restates bucket meanings and the opportunity score scale, adding clarity but little beyond the structured schema.

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 resource (untracked keywords from Sonar's discovery engine) and clearly differentiates it from tracked-keyword tools by emphasizing 'that aren't tracked yet.' It also names the follow-up sibling sonar_track_keywords, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit context: read to find 'what should I track next,' pick winners, then use sonar_track_keywords. This is a clear when-to-use and next-action path, though it stops short of naming when-not-to-use or direct alternatives like sonar_keyword_suggestions.

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