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

Annotations already declare the write-but-non-destructive profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it defines the failure response shape `{ ok: false, error }` and prescribes an error-handling protocol (explain to user, help resolve, don't blindly retry), which annotations do not 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by required inputs and the failure protocol. No filler, though the error-handling sentence is lengthy yet still earns its place.

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 6-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required fields, the failure return shape, and a recovery protocol. The success return format and permission requirements remain unstated, a modest gap but reasonable given the annotations and error guidance.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry weight for the business params. It does list articleUrl, advertiserProjectId, anchorText and anchorRel, giving minimal meaning, but it doesn't explain semantics like the DOFOLLOW/NOFOLLOW/SPONSORED enum choices or the project ID reference. Partial compensation, not full.

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 (add a monitored article) and scopes it to 'monitored for changes.' It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling bulk-add-monitored-articles by describing a single URL, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'add a new article URL to be monitored,' and the mentions of advertiser project ID hint that a valid project must exist first. However, it never says when to use this versus bulk-add-monitored-articles or what prerequisites select a project, leaving the agent to infer.

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