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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: a 90-day cooldown with a 429 and next-available time, the minimum review threshold, and non-trial Indie plan plus write-scope authorization requirements.

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 operation type ('WRITE tool'), then the outcome, then constraints. Every clause carries signal — no filler, and the alternative tool and 429 behavior are stated compactly.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists what the analysis contains, and it covers preconditions, rate limits, and auth. For a 2-parameter write tool with no nested objects, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 both parameters are already fully documented, including that app_id is a Sonar app UUID (not a store id) and country is a per-market ISO code with default 'us'. The description reinforces the country dimension but adds no syntax 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: 'generates a fresh AI review analysis for a tracked app from its recent reviews', and enumerates the output (praise/complaint themes, sentiment, feature requests, trend). It explicitly names the sibling sonar_review_insights as the read counterpart, so an agent can distinguish write from read without opening either schema.

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?

Labeled 'WRITE tool' and gives explicit routing: use sonar_review_insights to read the current one. It states preconditions (at least 5 recent reviews), the rate limit (one analysis per app+country every 90 days), and account/plan requirements, leaving little to inference.

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