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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the discovery scan is enqueued asynchronously, so the agent knows results are not immediate. It does not state what happens on a duplicate domain, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the input-format constraint front-loaded and the async caveat last. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter write with no output schema and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the key operational fact (asynchronous discovery scan) is disclosed. The remaining gap is duplicate/already-tracked behavior for a non-idempotent tool, which the description leaves silent.

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 all three parameters (label, domain, site_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the bare-domain format, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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 ('Track a new competitor for a site') and constrains the input ('by its bare domain (no protocol)'). It is distinguishable from siblings like add_keyword and add_rank_alert by the resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

The intent (adding a competitor to a site) implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_competitors or get_market_analysis. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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