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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds real value on top: default result count of 10, closest-match ordering, the exact fields returned, and the important cost trait "Uses no credits." It does not cover error cases such as an invalid or still-running job_id, which keeps it from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the job_id default, followed by usage and return details. Dense but every sentence carries information; the return-field enumeration slightly bloats the middle sentence but is useful given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return semantics, and it does: field list, count, and ordering. For a simple two-parameter read tool, the remaining omission (error behavior for missing/incomplete jobs) is minor.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: omitting job_id falls back to the latest search, which is a behavioral parameter semantic not documented in the schema. It also restates limit's default and ordering, which is redundant but harmless.

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 (returns) and resource (creators of a find_competitors search), and explicitly ties the job_id to the find_competitors sibling, making the producer/consumer split between the two tools obvious. It also names track_creator in describing the returned handle/platform, further situating the tool 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?

"Use it to check on a search that was still running" gives a clear triggering condition, and referencing find_competitors implies the prerequisite call. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g., what to do if results were already returned inline) but the context is strong.

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