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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the MCP_API_KEY bearer requirement, a confirmation prompt before writing, and the crucial nuance that a retry on an existing site UPDATES name/category/tagline/description rather than being a no-op. 'Never deletes anything' largely restates destructiveHint=false, and no return shape is described, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose before dependencies, then idempotency, then safety and auth. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact with no filler.

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 write tool with annotations, no output schema, and fully described parameters, this covers the remaining agent questions: auth, confirmation, retry behavior, and downstream dependencies. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter including the two enums is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the retry-update field list, while the url-as-identity semantics it implies are already spelled out in the schema's url description.

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 ('Start tracking one of your products') and immediately scopes it to the connected Sellular account. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the four downstream tools that depend on tracking, so an agent can place it precisely in the workflow.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when a product is missing from list_tracked_sites', naming the sibling whose output selects this tool. It also documents a precondition (the four account-scoped tools refuse to run on untracked products) that tells the agent when this must be called first.

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