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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results come back in tracking order, there is a cap and used count (up to 50 tracked questions on the Founder plan), and 'curated: false' indicates AfterLaunch-generated prompts that can be replaced.

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?

It is a single dense sentence but front-loads the core identity of the resource before the return-shape and plan details. Slightly run-on, yet nearly every clause (ordering, plan cap, curated flag) carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description must convey the shape of what comes back, and it does: an ordered prompt list plus cap/used/curated fields. Only minor gaps remain, such as the exact field names or how to paginate past the cap.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain inputs. It spends its words on return-field semantics (cap, used, curated) instead, which is the useful place given the empty schema.

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 the specific resource ('the customer questions AfterLaunch tracks: the AI visibility (GEO) question set every measurement is taken against'), which is more concrete than the bare tool name. It implicitly contrasts with track_prompt/untrack_prompt by framing this as the read/inspection side, though it never names a 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?

It states access conditions ('Read-only, free, readable on every plan') but gives no when-to-use routing, e.g. that track_prompt adds questions or untrack_prompt removes them. Usage is implied by the resource description rather than spelled out.

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