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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes much further, disclosing that the next scheduled scan runs at full depth, the week-over-week trend re-baselines, questions are deduplicated, and there is a hard cap of 15. This is exactly the kind of side-effect transparency agents need.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then packs consequences, constraints, auth requirements, and upgrade behavior into a few tight sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant padding.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, side effects, constraints, permissions, plan requirements, and free-trial behavior. There is nothing an agent needs to know before calling it that 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. However, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the text is a customer question, is deduplicated, and counts against a hard cap of 15 tracked prompts. This is useful context that the schema alone does not convey.

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 first sentence names a specific operation ('Add one customer question') and the exact resource ('AI visibility (GEO) set'), making it easy to distinguish from untrack_prompt and list_tracked_prompts. The rest of the description reinforces this by explaining what changing the set 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 gives clear context: add deliberately rather than churning, and the consequences of changing the set. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., untrack_prompt for removal), but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool.

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