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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing budget spend behavior, the AI-engine-only constraint ('above 1 only for AI engines'), partial-failure reporting into 'failed', and 'Safe to retry'. This is meaningful behavioral context layered on top of the annotations.

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-loads purpose and batch limit, then operation semantics, then budget/failure notes. Dense but each sentence carries information; no 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description nonetheless flags the 'failed' reporting so the agent knows partial results are possible. For a batch mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, this is complete enough.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the non-obvious params: it documents all four operation enum values, explains checkFrequency (how often checked), and nPasses (answers per check). The remaining params (organizationId, projectId, trackedQueryIds) are self-evident identifiers, so the compensation is strong.

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 and resource ('Change tracked queries') plus batch scope ('up to 100 ... at once'), which cleanly separates it from create_tracked_queries, delete_tracked_queries, and get_tracked_query. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Each operation value is defined (pause stops checks, resume restarts, set_check_frequency, set_passes) and the budget effect plus a pointer to get_usage is given. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or routing rules against siblings, but the operation semantics make correct selection clear.

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