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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: budget consumption (1 check, 5 for a Claude pass), that in-flight checks are skipped, that results are asynchronous and arrive over minutes, and the mandatory confirmationToken flow. Annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, not idempotent) are consistent but do not convey the cost or confirmation mechanics the description supplies.

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 the cost model and confirmation requirement. Dense but almost every sentence carries operative information; only the closing pointer to analytics tools is dispensable.

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 mutation-with-cost tool that has an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: selection semantics, budget cost, skip behavior, async result delivery, and the mandatory preview/confirmation gate. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate; it explains trackedQueryIds (up to 100, matching maxItems), all:true, and the confirmationToken workflow. It leaves requestId, projectId, and organizationId unexplained, though the latter two are self-evidently scoping identifiers.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and an explicit contrast: 'Check tracked queries now instead of waiting for their schedule'. This clearly separates it from sibling scheduling/creation tools such as create_tracked_queries and update_tracked_queries.

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?

States exactly how to invoke it (name up to 100 in trackedQueryIds, or all:true for every active query) and lays out the required confirmation workflow: call preview_operation first, show the plan, then call only after explicit user agreement. When-to-use and prerequisites are both covered.

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