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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds critical behavior beyond annotations: it previews exact searches, enabled state, and LinkedIn resolution choice, requires explicit approval, does not activate draft or paused agents, and notes X account connection and Hacker News provider requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then walks through prerequisites, conditional behavior, approval flow, exclusions, and source-specific requirements in tightly ordered sentences. No sentence is filler; each either routes the agent or prevents a misstep.

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 a complex, mutating, multi-step configuration tool with full schema coverage and an existing outputless preview/approval pattern, the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, approval gating, and source-specific constraints. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameter documentation is already handled by the schema. The description reinforces '1-10 precise searches' and 'LinkedIn resolution choice', but these largely repeat the schema descriptions rather than adding new syntax or usage meaning.

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: configure X or Hacker News searches for one owned agent and set source listening. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_agent_sources and set_agent_source_listening by naming both siblings and the conditions for using them.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing ('First call get_agent_sources'), branch-specific behavior for no existing source versus an existing source, and a direct alternative for searches that need no change: set_agent_source_listening. It also states when not to use it and what approval is required.

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