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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: 'Free, spends nothing,' the two consequences (full-depth scan and re-baselining trend), idempotency, and matching rules (ignoring case/punctuation). It also mentions the required 'config' scope and Founder plan, which are not in the schema or annotations.

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 concise yet information-dense: opening with the primary action, then covering cost, consequences, matching, idempotency, and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded without any fluff.

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?

The description thoroughly covers prerequisites, effects, and matching behavior, making it complete for a tool with a single parameter. It does not state return values or error cases, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap rather than a significant omission.

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 schema already describes the only parameter 'text' clearly, including the matching rule and source (list_tracked_prompts). The description repeats the matching rule but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('buyer question from the AI visibility (GEO) set') and adds the cap-of-15 detail, effectively distinguishing this from the sibling track_prompt. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 implies usage as the inverse of track_prompt by referencing 'Same two honest consequences as track_prompt' and the schema points to list_tracked_prompts for source text. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond this implicit contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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