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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that names are lower-cased, must be unique in the project, and that individual failures are reported in 'failed' without aborting the batch (partial-failure semantics). It also explains the requestId idempotency contract, which is valuable given idempotentHint=false.

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 with the core action and scope, then constraints and workflow. Dense but every sentence carries useful information; the count cap and uniqueness rule are integrated rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the operation's key constraints and failure behavior, though it leaves the organizationId/projectId scoping and any permission requirements undocumented.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'names' (lower-casing, uniqueness, batch cap) and 'requestId' (fresh key, reuse on retry), but says nothing about organizationId or projectId scoping beyond naming the project.

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+resource ('Create up to 100 query clusters') and defines what a cluster is ('the groups tracked queries are organized in'). It names sibling tools (set_tracked_query_clusters, start_auto_clustering) so the agent can place it within the workflow.

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?

Identifies the related follow-up actions (assigning queries via set_tracked_query_clusters, or letting start_auto_clustering propose groups), which clarifies the workflow context. It does not explicitly state when NOT to create clusters versus using auto-clustering, so the exclusion is only implied.

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