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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by framing the tool as 'planning' and 'listing' metadata rather than mutating anything. It also discloses a behavioral prerequisite (must call actions_details before querying), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not state the shape of the returned bodies, though the output schema likely covers that.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact, numbered steps; every line carries actionable information (which request value, what it returns, what is required). No redundant restatement of the schema or annotation fields.

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?

This is a multi-mode dispatcher, and the description covers four of five parameters plus the required call ordering, which is the critical complexity. With an output schema present, return structure needn't be spelled out, so the only real gap is the undocumented `platform` parameter.

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 carries the burden and does well: it explains the meaning of each request enum value, what `actions` accepts, and how brand_id/workspace_id pair with request='brands'. The `platform` parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of five params unexplained.

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 resource (crawler query planning for InsightfulPipe) and names every request mode it supports with concrete outputs (workspace_id, brand_id, domains, request bodies). An agent can distinguish this discovery helper from execution siblings like execute_action, crawler_run_checker, and query_data purely from the description.

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 an explicit ordered workflow (Step 1 accounts, Step 2 available_actions, Step 3 actions_details) and marks the third step as 'REQUIRED before querying'. The optional brands path is stated with its prerequisites (brand_id + workspace_id), leaving nothing to inference about when to use which request value.

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