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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destructive, so the description's job is to add scope semantics — and it does: never-checked and overdue counts are scoped to active queries only, overdue means past the check-frequency interval, and it explicitly states this is a current-state snapshot with no date window. That last point is genuinely useful for avoiding a wrong call with a date parameter. It omits any note on cost/latency or how large the 'sample' of overdue queries is.

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 what the tool returns, followed by scope caveats and then use-case questions. The final sentence of example questions largely restates the opening enumeration ('overdue, paused, or never checked' duplicates the count list), which is mild redundancy but not enough to hurt readability.

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 structure needn't be spelled out — yet the description still usefully previews the contents and the scoping rule for overdue/never-checked. Combined with the explicit 'no date window' note and the snapshot framing, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ID semantics remain unaddressed.

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 0% for both organizationId and projectId, but the names are self-explanatory and the description establishes the project-scoped subject ('a project's tracked queries'). It does not state requiredness, ID format, or whether organizationId must match the project's owning org, leaving the schema to carry undocumented parameters.

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?

Starts with a specific resource and output: 'Coverage summary for a project's tracked queries', then enumerates the exact counts returned (total, active, paused, never-checked, overdue). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_project_rank_tracking_stats or get_tracked_query, which cover different aspects of tracking.

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?

Gives explicit usage framing — 'Answers what is stale / not being tracked in one call' — and lists concrete triggering questions (which queries are overdue, paused, never checked; how fresh is my data). It does not, however, name an alternative sibling tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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