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

Annotations already declare the write-but-not-destructive, idempotent profile, and the description adds context beyond that: the plan's slot capacity (trackedPromptsPerPlan), the fact that each tracked prompt is consumed by every scheduled run, and the required 'rescan' key scope. It stops short of saying what happens when slots are exhausted or what the call 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the downstream behavior and the auth prerequisite. The parenthetical about slots is slightly awkward but every sentence carries useful information.

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 small two-parameter mutation tool this covers the essentials an agent needs: what gets created, that it feeds every scheduled run, the plan quota, and the required key scope. With no output schema, the only real gap is the return value and behavior when the slot limit is exceeded.

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% and already documents both productKey (see list_products) and prompts (format, 50-item max, normalization). The description adds no further meaning to either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Adds') plus resource ('custom prompts to a product's AI-visibility tracking board') and explicitly scopes it to the trackedPromptsPerPlan slots layered on the derived prompt set, which separates it from add_tracked_keywords and add_product without needing their schemas.

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?

Implies the use case (prompts you want answered by every scheduled visibility run across engines) and points at the dashboard's AI visibility tab for citation trends, but never states an explicit when-not-to-use or names a sibling alternative such as add_tracked_keywords for keyword tracking.

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