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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses significant behavioral traits: it is free, it causes the next scan to run at full depth, it re-baselines the week-over-week trend, and it requires config scope and Founder plan. It also explains the free-trial behavior and how to upgrade. This transparency goes well beyond what 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?

The description is dense but well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers consequences, constraints, and requirements. Every sentence adds value, though it is longer than strictly necessary. The information is organized logically, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Given that the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and modest annotations, the description fully compensates by explaining side effects, prerequisites, free-trial behavior, and the hard cap. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate the impact of doing so.

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 input schema already provides a full description of the 'text' parameter with length constraints. The tool description adds extra semantics: questions are deduplicated, there is a hard cap of 15 total questions, and it must be phrased as a real buyer question. This complements the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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+resource: "Add one buyer question to the AI visibility (GEO) set." It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like untrack_prompt (removing) and list_tracked_prompts (listing). The scope and constraints (e.g., 10-200 characters, hard cap of 15) further solidify its purpose.

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 states when to use the tool (to add a buyer question) and provides context on side effects and prerequisites, advising to "add deliberately rather than churning the list." It also mentions using create_checkout for upgrades on a free trial. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like untrack_prompt or list_tracked_prompts for other use cases, so it misses a clear 'when not to use' statement.

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