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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extras beyond that: the Indie-plan access requirement, that the default status is still-actionable 'new' rows, and the reason rows appear here (not yet tracked). It stops short of rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 core purpose leads, then the row taxonomy and metrics, then the track-next framing and plan note. Every clause carries information, though the em-dash-heavy construction is heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With eight parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (popularity, difficulty, AI relevance, opportunity score sorted best-first). Access requirements and the follow-up action are both covered, leaving only minor gaps around pagination and result volume.

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 and the schema already documents all eight parameters including the enums and ranges. The description's 'ranked finds / gap / idea' phrasing loosely mirrors the bucket enum but adds no syntax, format, or default detail the schema lacks.

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 and scope: keywords the discovery engine surfaced for a tracked app that aren't tracked yet, broken into ranked/gap/idea categories. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling keyword tools like sonar_app_keywords (tracked keywords) and sonar_keyword_suggestions by explicitly framing the result as untracked candidates.

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?

Frames itself as 'Sonar's what-should-I-track-next answer' and routes the follow-up action to sonar_track_keywords, plus notes the Indie plan requirement. It gives clear context but does not contrast with the other keyword-discovery siblings (sonar_extract_keywords, sonar_keyword_suggestions) that an agent might otherwise pick.

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