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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it names what is destroyed ('associated tracking data'), the plan gate (Indie, trial counts), and the auth/scope requirement — none of which the annotations convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The 'WRITE tool' marker and the core verb are front-loaded, with prerequisites trailing. Nothing redundant.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and covered annotations, the description supplies purpose, plan gate, auth needs, and destruction scope. The only minor gap is whether untracking is reversible and how it relates to the underlying product record.

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%, and the app_id description already warns it is a Sonar UUID and NOT a store id. The description text adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('untrack an app and its associated tracking data') and scopes it to 'the caller's Sonar workspace', which cleanly separates it from the sibling write tools (delete_product, remove_competitor). An agent can tell what this does and what it operates on without opening the 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?

Gives prerequisites (Indie plan, authorized account or write-scoped API key), which is useful context for whether the call will succeed, but never states when to use this tool versus the nearby alternatives like sonar_delete_product or sonar_remove_competitor. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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