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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool consumes a run of the team's allowance (a cost/consumption behavior), explains the meaning of label/score/verdict, and explicitly states that if timed_out is true the investigation continues server-side and should be retrieved later. This goes well beyond a simple 'runs an investigation' statement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then covers preset_id, query, check_urls, and the output semantics in a tight sequence. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor deduction is that the output-field explanation could arguably be split for readability, but it is still efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the required inputs, the optional parameters, the meaning of the return fields, the consumption behavior, and the timeout/retrieval path. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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, and it does. It explains preset_id with a concrete list of valid values, defines query as the investigation objective, and clarifies check_urls as additional URLs for the agent to check. It also explains the meaning of the output fields label/score/verdict and the timed_out behavior, which adds meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('managed Detect Agent investigation'), and the input ('media at a public HTTPS URL'), and it clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_detect_agent_run and list_detect_agents. It also enumerates the valid preset_id values, which removes ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (to run an investigation and get a verdict) and how to confirm preset_id values via list_detect_agents. It also explains the timeout behavior and directs the agent to use get_detect_agent_run later if timed_out is true, which is clear guidance versus alternatives.

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