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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a metadata/setup helper, and the description adds useful workflow context beyond the annotation: the mandatory pre-query step ordering and that accounts already includes available_actions (saving a redundant call). No mention of error behavior or response shape, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Front-loaded numbered steps with bolded request values and an explicit optional section. Slightly list-heavy, but every line maps to a distinct call mode and none is filler.

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 read-only, output-schema-backed metadata helper, the description covers the full call sequence, prerequisites, and what each mode returns conceptually. The only omission (platform) is minor given the tool's task.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must do the work, and it largely does: it explains each request enum value, that actions_details takes an array of action ids from available_actions, and that brands needs brand_id + workspace_id. The 'platform' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one gap.

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 states a specific role — a setup/metadata helper for Microsoft Clarity queries — and enumerates the request modes it serves (accounts, actions_details, available_actions, brands). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it must precede (execute_action, query_data), so the differentiation from siblings is implied by 'before querying' rather than stated.

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?

Clear ordered guidance: Step 1 accounts, Step 2 actions_details marked REQUIRED before querying, plus optional calls for available_actions and brands. What it lacks is explicit routing against the sibling tools (e.g., 'call query_data only after this').

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