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

With only minimal annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it discloses idempotence, case- and punctuation-insensitive matching, no monetary cost, the two side effects (full-depth scan and trend re-baselining), and auth requirements (config scope, Founder plan). This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The primary action and cap implication come first, followed by consequences, matching behavior, and auth. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it does, why it exists (cap management), side effects, idempotence, matching rules, and required permissions. Nothing essential 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?

The single parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the matching behavior and the source list. The description restates the matching semantics rather than adding new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one customer question from the AI visibility (GEO) set'. It adds concrete context about the cap of 15 slots and clearly distinguishes this from its sibling by naming track_prompt and describing the inverse action.

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 makes the usage context clear: use it to remove a tracked question and free a slot against the cap. It references track_prompt and the same consequences, but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives like list_tracked_prompts as the source for the text to pass.

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