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

The annotations flag a destructive, non-read-only, non-open-world operation, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the credit pricing model, that already-revealed stores cost 0, the surcharge for unrevealed details, and that insufficient credits results in no charge with cost and balance returned. That is precisely the spending and side-effect context an agent needs for a paid mutation.

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 credit warning is front-loaded in capitals, followed by the confirmation protocol, then action semantics in the order they are needed. Nearly every sentence carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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 nested, credit-spending mutation with no output schema, the description covers the cost model, confirmation gate, action meanings, insufficient-credit outcome, and the async follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the floor, and the description earns more by explaining what each action enum value produces (details unlocks profile links, buying signals, phone; the other three start a decision-maker contact search) with per-action pricing. The selection object is left to the schema, which documents ids/tab/filters/deselected thoroughly.

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?

"Reveal data for stores" gives a specific verb and resource, and the opening warning plus the closing pointer to getRevealStatus cleanly separate it from the cost-preview and status-tracking siblings. An agent can distinguish this from getRevealCost/getRevealStatus 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?

Explicit preconditions: call getRevealCost for the same selection and quote the cost (or state 1 credit per store), then obtain user confirmation, and "Never call it without the confirmation." It also names the follow-up path (getRevealStatus) for contact searches, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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