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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('Spends Growth Credits'), latency ('May take a minute'), the async partial-answer pattern with a retry instruction, and the answer's epistemic character (only measured facts, names what is not measured). These are the exact traits an agent needs and none are derivable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, then cost, then latency/retry. Every sentence adds information an agent cannot get elsewhere; nothing is repeated from the annotations or 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, answer character, cost, latency, and retry behavior. The main residual gap is what the answer actually looks like in shape or length, which matters for a free-form response with no output schema.

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 carry the meaning of the single free-text 'question' parameter. The two worked examples ('Why are enquiries down?', 'What is working?') effectively teach the expected phrasing and grain, though the 3–600 character bound and one-question-at-a-time constraint are not mentioned.

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 ('Ask a question about this business's marketing') and reinforces it with two concrete example questions, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings like whats_happening or activity without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (marketing questions about this business, e.g. diagnosing a drop or identifying what works), but never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it — an agent deciding between this and whats_happening gets no explicit routing rule.

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