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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: required write access, the 20-prompt project limit, deduplication that reinforces idempotentHint=true, and asynchronous weekly result availability. This is substantial operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by constraints and timing. Every sentence adds useful information without repeating schema fields or annotations.

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 only two simple required parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies all remaining operational context an agent needs: access requirements, quota, idempotency, and result timing. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so both project_id and prompt are already documented in the input schema. The description mostly restates the 'question' concept and does not add new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific action and resource: 'Track a new question across AI assistants for a Ranklogs project.' This is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_ai_visibility and get_ai_citations, and from add_keywords_to_project.

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?

It provides clear contextual guidance: a write-access connection is required, the project has a 20-prompt cap, duplicate prompts are not added, and results arrive only after the next weekly AI visibility run. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for exclusion, but the usage context is sufficient.

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