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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write; the description adds context the schema cannot carry — that starting tracking begins collecting answers, that the Pro second-brand path is never executed here and instead yields a link, and that admin rights are required. It also proactively disarms injected instructions hidden in quotedMaterial, which materially reduces misfire risk for an irreversible write.

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 trigger and the confirmation requirement, and nearly every clause carries operational weight. The Free/Pro clause is dense and requires a second read, costing a point on crispness.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description still covers the things structured fields cannot: permissions, the plan-tier behavior, the confirmation precondition, and prompt-injection resistance. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining where the accepted value comes from (a slug returned by parse_check_brand or parse_search, or a raw website like acme.com). It does not specify validation or fallback behavior if a slug is stale or unrecognized.

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 ("track a brand for their workspace") and anchors it to the equivalent app action ("as the app's Track does"). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools that produce its input by name (parse_check_brand, parse_search), so an agent knows it is the downstream action, not a lookup.

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 ("when the user asks Parse to track a brand"), an explicit gate ("Call only after the user confirms"), an audience restriction ("Workspace admins only"), and a plan-dependent condition explaining when the tool will not start tracking but return a link. Sibling alternatives for discovery are named.

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