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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that the work happens in the background (~10 minutes), that a separate call to `visibility` is needed for results, and the credit/plan/rate-limit implications of re-running. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a zero-parameter tool.

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 critical facts (async, ~10 minutes, call `visibility` next) are front-loaded, and the billing rules follow. It is dense with plan/credit detail, but each clause governs a decision the agent may need to relay, so little is wasted.

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 no-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, how long it takes, what to call next, and when it is permissible or costly to run. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-related the description needs to add. It appropriately spends its text on cost and sequencing instead.

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 concrete action and scope: it asks 10 buyer questions across every engine, 4 runs each, asynchronously. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `visibility` by saying to call that tool afterwards to get results, so an agent can tell run from retrieve without opening a 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?

It lays out explicit conditions: first check is a free baseline on every plan; subsequent re-checks require Builder or Growth, cost 15 credits, are capped at one per day, and Builder/Growth get weekly automatic re-checks. It even instructs the agent to state the price before a re-check.

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