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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is partially covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the quote-seen prerequisite and the explicit statement that this is a one-off rather than a subscription, which prevents a costly misread. It still doesn't say that credits are consumed per run.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the precondition front-loaded and the negation immediately after the action. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter, credit-consuming action with no output schema, the description covers the thing that most affects correct invocation: the prerequisite and the fact that this is not a recurring subscription. Return-value explanation is not required without an output schema, and the schema itself documents all parameters.

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%, and the descriptions there are unusually good (notably clientRequestId's retry-only semantics). The tool description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('run one search check') with a stated precondition ('after the owner has seen the quote') and an explicit scope negation versus a recurring weekly check. It is distinguishable from soclo_articles_check_quote, though it never names the retrieval sibling (soclo_articles_checks) where results likely land.

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 when-to-use condition (after the quote has been shown to the owner) and one explicit when-not ('this does not turn on a weekly check'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool to call if the user actually wants a recurring check.

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