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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the free-tier cap of one app and five keywords, and that a lapsed Pro plan silently hides results beyond that, which warns the agent its list may be truncated.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the plan-limit caveat. No wasted words, though the opening fragment reads as a title restatement rather than an action statement.

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 should hint at the return shape; it says 'apps and storefronts' but not whether that is an array, whether ids or names come back, or how truncation manifests. The plan-limit note is a strong addition, but the gap on return structure leaves it only adequate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. It adds the useful implication that results are scoped to 'this account' rather than filterable.

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 names the resource (apps and storefronts tracked for keyword rank) but is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that this is a read/list operation. It does implicitly distinguish itself from the write-side sibling add_tracked_app and from the single-app get_app, but never says so.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_tracked_keywords or whoami, and no mention of what to do next after listing (e.g. pass an app to get_app). Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.

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