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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, so the description's job is to add beyond that. It adds real context: cursor pagination with a default of 100 per page, and a plan entitlement (Indie plan, trial counts) that affects whether the call succeeds. It doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior, but that is a minor gap against rich annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then output value, then pagination and entitlement caveats. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does (per-app latest snapshot with rating, review count, version, installs, plus UUIDs). Pagination mechanics and the plan prerequisite are covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters (limit, cursor) are already documented, and the description only restates the page-size default. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 and resource ('List the apps tracked in the caller's Sonar workspace') plus the exact scope (own apps + competitors) and the payload returned (latest snapshot fields). An agent can distinguish this from sonar_list_products and the many app_* tools without opening a 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?

The clause naming downstream tools (sonar_get_app, sonar_app_keywords, sonar_app_rankings, sonar_app_changes) effectively signals this is the entry point that yields needed UUIDs. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over sibling listers like sonar_list_products or sonar_app_search, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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