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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that store fetches stop, that history is retained, that re-adding restores charts, that positions keep being observed via existing searches, and that an account is required. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the name or schema.

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-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds behavioral and auth context. Every sentence carries information, though the auth paragraph is slightly verbose for a three-parameter operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects and auth prerequisites thoroughly. It omits error/edge-case behavior such as removing a competitor that isn't tracked, which is the remaining gap.

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 67% with two of three parameters documented in-schema ('From list_competitors', 'From list_extensions') and store constrained by an enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. what happens if external_id is unknown), so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 and resource ('Stop tracking a competitor for an extension'), clearly distinguishing it from add_competitor and remove_keyword. The scope is unambiguous and an agent can select it 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?

Provides a clear usage condition (needs an ExtensionDash account) and names alternatives (find_listing, get_store_listing) for unauthenticated callers, with a signup path. It doesn't explicitly characterize when removal is appropriate versus just leaving tracking alone, which keeps it just below a 5.

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