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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description earns its keep by explaining what actually happens on replace: removed queries go inactive but keep stored history, and saving schedules Search Console collection. The e-mail/site-package dependency adds real operational context. Points lost only for the vague term 'inactive'.

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?

The first sentence is well front-loaded, but the description then duplicates itself: 'Removed queries keep their stored history' and 'Removed queries become inactive; their stored history is retained' say the same thing, as do the two e-mail alerts / site package sentences. Roughly half the text is redundant.

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 replace-all mutation with no output schema, the agent learns the destructive nature, the read-first prerequisite, history retention, and the scheduled collection side effect. Only minor gaps remain, such as what a failed partial save does.

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 100%, so both params are already documented, including the 1–300 character / 20-item limits. The description restates the 20-item cap and 'exact queries' but adds nothing about the 'id' parameter or query syntax beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the site's tracked query selection (up to 20).' That distinguishes it from save_ai_search_queries and search_console well enough, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Read search_console first to preserve existing selections' gives a concrete prerequisite workflow step, which is valuable for a replace-style operation. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it supersedes or stating when not to use it.

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