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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it discloses the async nature (no position on return), the status lifecycle, per-store/per-language tracking semantics, the beta limit of 15 keywords counted per language, the limit-error behavior plus the remove_keyword remedy, and the account requirement with a signup path.

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?

Four short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, then polling guidance, then locale semantics, then limits/auth. Dense and largely earning its place, though the locale paragraph and the limit paragraph overlap on the 'per language' point, allowing minor trimming.

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 an async mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: auth prerequisite, async result handling, error paths, limits, and the follow-up calls to verify outcome. Nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by tying locale to limit counting ('ad blocker' in en and de is two of them) and by explaining that a term is tracked independently per store language, giving the locale parameter operational meaning.

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+resource ('Start tracking a search term for an extension') and immediately explains the mechanism: one term per store, with a rank fetch enqueued per store. This is clearly distinct from siblings like add_competitor, remove_keyword, and list_keywords.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: poll list_keywords until status flips pending→scanned, or watch list_scrape_runs for failed fetches, and it names find_listing/get_store_listing as the fallback for users without an ExtensionDash account. It even states when-not (unauthenticated users cannot use it).

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