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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention any outcomes, side effects, return format, or constraints. The tool could be a read or mutation; nothing is disclosed. This is a complete gap.

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 description is extremely brief but not helpfully concise. It contains a single sentence about billing that provides no functional information. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, similar to the 'Process' example, which earned a 2 for being too terse to be useful.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. Given this complexity, the description is wholly inadequate. It must explain the tool's purpose, typical use cases, and possibly pagination, but states only billing. The agent cannot determine what the tool does or how to invoke it correctly.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, examples, and defaults. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a high-coverage schema sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. However, it also does not add any extra context, so a neutral score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is just 'search-media Billing per call: 1 Credits.' It does not state what the tool does, beyond the title. The name 'get_search_media' hints it searches media, but the description provides no verb, resource, or scope. It is essentially a tautology, failing to distinguish from sibling search tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_search_comments, get_search_communities, etc. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions. The single sentence about billing offers no usage direction.

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