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

Annotations establish it is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the question is swept weekly across every engine, re-adding restores prior runs, and the call is refused with the limit named when the plan is full. That is real context the annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then trigger, then edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; none is 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?

For a single-param mutation with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, side effect (weekly sweep), idempotent re-add semantics, and the refusal path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the argument and gives an example. The description adds no syntax or format constraints beyond the schema (baseline 3 for a fully-covered single param).

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 ('Start tracking a buying question') and adds scope the siblings need ('for the connected brand, so it is asked of every engine on the next weekly sweep'). This separates it cleanly from untrack_question, my_questions, and my_question_history.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user says they want to track, add, watch or measure a question') plus a state-dependent rule for re-adding a removed question. It also names the failure condition (plan full). Nothing is left to inference.

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