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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful per-action detail the annotations cannot: 'add' preserves the existing set, while 'set' drops anything not listed. This is exactly the kind of action-specific destructiveness disclosure that helps an agent avoid data loss. It does not cover auth/permissions, hence not a 5.

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-loaded with purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Actions and Args. The opening paragraph is slightly long but every clause (misspellings, .com suffix, under-counting) earns its place by teaching the agent what counts as an alias.

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 multi-action mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the essential decision surface: what to do, when, and the safety tradeoffs of each action. Missing only the response shape and any permission requirements.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does: brand_id is marked required, aliases is given a concrete comma-separated format example ('AWS, Amazon Web Services'), and action's three values are each explained semantically. The user_intent param is left to its own schema description.

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 (update) and resource (brand aliases), and goes further by defining what an alias is and why it matters for visibility counting. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like manage_competitor or add_knowledge without opening a 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 a concrete trigger: 'Reach for this when a brand looks under-counted because AI refers to it by a name Trakkr is not matching.' It also explains when to pick each action ('add' is safe, 'set' with care). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives for brand management, so 4 rather than 5.

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