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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call frees a slot against the 50-cap, costs nothing, triggers a full-depth next scan, and re-baselines the week-over-week trend. IDEMPOTENT and the case/punctuation-insensitive match are exactly the behavioral nuances the destructiveHint alone would not convey.

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-loads the core action and effect, then stacks the operational facts (cap, cost, scan depth, re-baseline, matching, idempotency, permissions) efficiently. Slightly colour-heavy phrasing ('two honest consequences') costs it the top mark, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, every fact an agent needs is present: side effects, cap accounting, permission and plan requirements, matching semantics, and idempotency. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already carries the match semantics and the pointer to list_tracked_prompts. The description restates the case/punctuation rule but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Remove one customer question from the AI visibility (GEO) set') and implicitly contrasts with the add direction ('Same two honest consequences as adding one'), which maps to the sibling track_prompt. An agent can distinguish this from track_prompt and list_tracked_prompts without opening either schema.

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 preconditions — 'Requires the config scope and the Founder plan' — and states the matching rule and idempotency, which tells the agent when a repeat call is safe. It does not explicitly name track_prompt as the inverse tool or state when not to call it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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