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

The description discloses destructive behavior ('clears the old index') and asynchronous execution ('rebuilds it in the background'), aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It also mentions the Pro plan requirement. It does not explicitly mention idempotency, but that is covered by annotations.

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?

The description is concise, with two sentences that cover the action, differences from set_data_feed, and prerequisites. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Slight dependency on knowing set_data_feed, but not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the operational context: what it does, when to use it, and prerequisites. It does not mention error handling or return values, but those are not necessary given the context. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters; it references set_data_feed but does not elaborate on how url, enabled, or website_id affect the operation. Thus, no additional value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it is like set_data_feed but for the Max tier, and it explicitly describes the actions (fetch, validate, clear old index, rebuild). This distinguishes it from sibling tools and provides a concrete purpose.

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 description indicates when to use this tool (for the Max tier / larger catalogue) and mentions the prerequisite 'Needs the Pro plan or higher.' It does not explicitly contrast with all alternatives, but it does differentiate from set_data_feed, which is sufficient for typical usage.

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