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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: it discloses that the operation is free, that it is idempotent, that matching ignores case and punctuation, that the next scheduled scan runs at full depth, that the week-over-week trend re-baselines, and that 'config' scope plus the Founder plan are required. That is exactly the kind of auth, side-effect, and cost context a mutation tool needs.

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 action and slot-cap consequence, then layers side effects and requirements compactly. The 'Same two honest consequences as adding one' framing is slightly rhetorical but still carries signal; no sentence is pure 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 destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the agent has everything it needs: what is removed, how it is matched, idempotency, cost, plan/scope requirements, and downstream scan/trend effects. Nothing material 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the matching semantics and the list_tracked_prompts provenance. The description restates the case/punctuation-insensitive matching and adds idempotency, but contributes little parameter meaning the schema does not already carry; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the add path ('Same two honest consequences as adding one'), so an agent can tell it apart from track_prompt 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 the operational context (frees a slot against the Founder plan's 50 cap) and points at list_tracked_prompts via the schema as the source of valid values. It stops short of explicitly saying when NOT to use it or naming the inverse sibling as the alternative for the opposite action, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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