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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the 20-term cap and the partial-failure contract: rejected terms surface in `skipped` with a reason rather than being silently dropped. It stops short of saying whether re-tracking is a no-op or consumes plan quota.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The limit is front-loaded and the error-handling behavior follows immediately, which is the right priority order for an agent deciding whether to retry or split a call.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so for the case that matters most — partial rejection. Combined with the cap and the sourced-from hint, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret a partial result.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value the schema lacks: no maxItems exists in the schema, yet the description states the 20-term limit, which directly affects how an agent batches calls. It adds nothing further about application_id, which is fine given the schema documents 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?

Specific verb ('Track') plus a clearly scoped resource ('opportunity terms for an application') with an explicit ceiling of 20. The schema's 'Terms from list_keyword_opportunities' reinforces that this is the opportunity-specific variant, though the description never names the sibling track_keywords, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 usage context is implied through the schema's note that terms should come from list_keyword_opportunities, which gives an agent a reasonable workflow anchor. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs track_keywords, no statement of prerequisites such as needing an existing application, and no exclusions.

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