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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: idempotency ('a gap already shipped or archived is left as it is'), cross-surface effect (stops re-proposal here AND on the growth Feed), auth requirement ('act' scope), plan availability (free on every plan), and that the reason feeds ranking. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with a state-changing dismissal, and the description clarifies the blast radius.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded and the sentences mostly earn their place, covering idempotency, cost, and scope. The closing justification ('telling the agent "not this one" is never a paid feature') is slightly rhetorical padding, keeping it from a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that only flag it as non-read-only/destructive, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, side effects across surfaces, idempotency, permissions, and cost. 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that the reason 'improves what gets ranked next' and that prompt_id/prompt_text together identify the gap. It doesn't explain the enum values, but it clarifies the purpose of the reason parameter beyond the schema's own note.

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+resource ('Set aside one AI visibility (GEO) gap') and defines the object precisely as a tracked question where rivals are named and this product isn't. It explicitly frames itself as 'the same verdict as a skip, on the AI visibility surface,' which separates it from skip_move/archive_move siblings.

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 clear context for use — a gap the founder will not act on — and names the analogous sibling concept ('same verdict as a skip') to route the agent. It does not state when to prefer this over archive_move or accept_move explicitly, so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternative treatment.

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