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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with link generation. The description adds the entitlement requirement (Pro plan) and the output cardinality (one link per source), plus store-specific encoding (UTM in the referrer parameter, ct/pt for App Store) — genuinely useful context beyond the annotation. It stops short of saying whether links are persisted or just computed.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action, then store variants, then the limiting constraint. No filler and no repetition of the title or schema text.

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 should sketch the return shape — "one link per traffic source" does that adequately, and the Pro entitlement is disclosed. Minor gaps remain: no default behavior for campaign/content, and no statement about whether the call only generates links or also registers them.

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 50%: target, sources, and provider_token are already documented in the schema, while content and campaign have no description anywhere. The description does add value by explaining which tokens apply to which store (referrer UTM for Play, ct/pt for App Store), but leaves content and campaign unexplained, so it neither regresses below nor rises far above the baseline.

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?

"Build tracked store links" is a specific verb+resource, and the description enumerates the four supported targets (Google Play, App Store, Steam, any web page) so an agent immediately knows the scope. Siblings (app_ads_txt, palette, search_tools, xp_curve) are unrelated, so no disambiguation is needed.

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?

"One link per traffic source" and "Needs GameShipKit Pro" give real usage constraints and a prerequisite that would otherwise cause a failed call. It does not name any alternative tool or state when-not-to-use, but no sibling overlaps this function.

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