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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value is in adding scope and shape: only active prompts, only the latest answer per prompt/assistant, sorted most-common-first. It does not mention result limits or pagination for what could be a large list, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a colon-list of returned fields, then a one-sentence usage note; no filler. The middle segment is dense and packs scope, deduplication rule, and ordering into one clause, which costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so: per-search answer counts, brand mentions, source assistants/prompts, and tracked-prompt status, plus sort order. Only volume/pagination behavior is unaddressed for a tool whose complexity is otherwise low.

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?

There is a single projectId parameter with 100% schema description coverage pointing at list_projects, so the schema does the documentation work. The description adds only an implicit notion of project scope ('the site's') and no new meaning about the parameter itself, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List the web searches the assistants ran while answering the site's active prompts') and narrows scope precisely with 'latest answer per prompt and assistant, most common first', which separates it from list_prompts or import_queries. It never names a competing sibling by name as the alternative, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

It states a clear use case ('find questions worth tracking') and a concrete next step with the sibling to use ('a search with no prompt yet can be added with add_prompts'). It stops short of stating when not to use this tool, e.g. when you already want existing prompt data and should call list_prompts.

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