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

With annotations present, the description still adds critical behavior beyond them: async rank-fetch enqueue, no position available at return, per-language independent keywords, Free/Premium quota (10/50), limit-error handling, and the ExtensionDash login requirement. No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and async behavior; auth and quota are separate useful paragraphs. However, per-language tracking is stated twice (paragraphs 3 and 4), adding minor redundancy for an otherwise well-structured description.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns and async flow. It does: position unavailable at return, status transitions from 'pending' to 'scanned', and where failures surface. It covers auth, quotas, and language semantics for a complex mutating tool.

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. The description reinforces locale independence and quota semantics but adds little syntax or constraint detail beyond the already-detailed schema descriptions for term, locale, and extension_id.

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 ('Start tracking') and resource ('a search term for an extension'), and names sibling tools (list_keywords, remove_keyword) that handle related but distinct operations. An agent can tell it apart from read-only lookup tools without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call list_keywords until status turns 'scanned' or list_scrape_runs to watch the fetch, and use remove_keyword to free a slot on limit errors. It also gives the required auth step, leaving nothing to inference.

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