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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the credit reservation behavior ('Reserves the quoted maximum from prepaid credits'), returns an operation_id for polling, mentions sandbox simulation, and clarifies that results don't determine infringement. It doesn't detail authentication specifics beyond 'Authenticate with the matching action scope'.

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 fairly concise, front-loading the core action and then adding necessary context about prerequisites, results, and limitations. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (requires two-step workflow with create_quote and polling), the description provides sufficient information: prerequisites, results, limitations, and behavioral notes like credit reservation. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains return values. It misses minor details like rate limits or error handling, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (quote_id and idempotency_key). The description mentions using a creator handle and existing text/identity matching, but these are not actual parameters—they are stored in the quote created earlier. It doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for the actual parameters.

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 action: search supported sources for suspected copies using a creator handle and text/identity matching. It distinguishes itself from siblings like investigate_url by noting 'no visual similarity search' and from create_quote by specifying the prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly name how it differs from investigate_url or other search-related tools.

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 provides clear usage context: 'First create_quote(action=search,...)' and describes the workflow with 'Results include...' and 'poll get_operation'. It also states limitations like 'no visual similarity search' and 'they do not determine infringement'. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or list alternatives.

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