aeo_filter_prompts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral context: it lists exactly what junk categories are removed (operators, year-stamps, foreign, geo, brand-variants, other-brands, dupes), specifies input format (items = [{text}] or [str]), and states the return shape {kept, removed, summary}. This clearly communicates a non-destructive analysis operation, going beyond the annotation.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action ('Clean...'), then lists remove targets, input format, and return structure. Every clause is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the high-level function, input format, and return shape, but with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves optional parameters like config and competitor_domains under-explained. For a filtering tool with nuanced controls, this is a notable gap, though the core workflow is understandable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'items' parameter format explicitly ('items = [{text}] or [str]') and hints at brand/geo/competitor behavior through the junk categories, but does not explicitly map parameters like 'brand', 'config', 'geo_target', and 'competitor_domains' to their functions. 'config' is entirely unexplained, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it cleans an imported keyword/prompt list by removing junk categories such as operators, year-stamps, foreign, geo, brand-variants, other-brands, and dupes. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling AEO tools like aeo_cluster_prompts, aeo_audit_prompts, aeo_generate_prompts, and aeo_prompt_volume.

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 description implies a clear usage context: when you have an imported list that needs cleaning/filtering before further AEO processing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection. Missing explicit 'use instead of' guidance, but context is clear.

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