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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results come back in tracking order, include a hard cap of 15 and a used count, and curated:false means the prompts were system-generated and replaceable. That is real return-shape disclosure not present in any structured field.

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 resource definition, then the return details, then plan/safety context. Sized well for a no-arg list tool. Minor redundancy: 'Read-only' restates readOnlyHint=true, which the structured annotations already carry.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: ordering, the hard cap of 15, the used count, and the curated flag. Slightly more on what a prompt record contains (base question text, timestamps) would make this fully self-contained.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly does not waste space documenting non-existent inputs and instead spends its words on output semantics.

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 resource and scope: 'the customer questions AfterLaunch tracks: the AI visibility (GEO) question set every measurement is taken against.' An agent can identify what the tool enumerates. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling mutators (track_prompt / untrack_prompt), so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied — the read-only, free-on-every-plan framing suggests safe inspection, but the description never says when to call this versus track_prompt, untrack_prompt, or the other list_* tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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