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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it is free on every plan, enforces a hard cap of 15, returns prompts in tracking order, and explains that curated: false means AfterLaunch generated the prompt and it can be replaced. For a read-only list tool with no output schema, this is strong transparency.

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 dense but efficient: purpose, return contents, usage guidance, and availability are all covered in four sentences. It could be slightly tightened (the first sentence's phrasing is a bit tangled), but every clause adds value.

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?

Given zero parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: what it returns, the hard cap, the meaning of the curated flag, and why to call it before track/untrack operations. No critical gap remains.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the parameter-semantics burden is minimal; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description wisely focuses on what the response contains rather than nonsensical parameter explanation.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: lists the tracked prompts that AfterLaunch maintains, and distinguishes them from generic prompts by explaining they are the AI visibility (GEO) question set. It precisely names the tool's output (prompts, cap, used, curated flag), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to read this tool before track_prompt or untrack_prompt to avoid duplicating questions or misjudging remaining capacity. This provides clear usage context and directly references the sibling tools that an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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