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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds context the annotations cannot convey: plan gating, per-tier allowances expressed as checks/prompts, the definition of a check ('one prompt on one engine, sampled once'), and the fallback behavior when prompts are omitted. It stops short of saying what happens when allowance is exceeded or that `cadence` schedules recurring runs, which are the main remaining behavioral unknowns for a creation tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by prerequisites and then the allowance table, so an agent can bail out early if the plan is wrong. The tier/allowance enumeration and the definition of a check are dense but each carries decision-relevant information; nothing reads as filler.

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 9-parameter creation tool with a nested `starter` object and an output schema, the description covers the things structured fields cannot: billing tier gate, quota consumption model, and the no-prompts fallback. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value detail is fine; what is missing is scheduling/`cadence` semantics and failure behavior at quota limits.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains the cost model in which each sample of each prompt on each engine consumes one check against the plan allowance, which directly informs how an agent should choose `samples`, `engines`, and `prompts`. It also clarifies the `starter` alternative to `prompts` as a mutually exclusive path rather than a supplementary field.

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 gives a specific resource (a brand's AI-answer visibility tracker) and enumerates the metrics it produces (mention rate, citation rate, share of voice, position), which lets an agent understand what is being set up. It never explicitly says 'creates a new tracker' and does not distinguish itself from run_citation_tracker or update_citation_tracker, so the create-vs-modify-vs-execute distinction has to come from the tool name rather than the text.

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?

It states a hard prerequisite (Starter plan or higher) and gives a concrete branching rule: with no prompts, pass `starter` and a starter set is generated to fit the plan. That is real usage guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this versus update_citation_tracker (modify an existing tracker) or citation_starter_prompts (inspect prompts first), and no when-not guidance.

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