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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns credibility score, permanent ID, and same-name accounts, and that it requires prior data from analyst_views. No destructive behavior is implied, and the description is consistent with a read-only operation.

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 well-structured with a bolded headline, but it is somewhat verbose with clauses like 'so a user searching...' which add context but could be trimmed. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately explains return values and notes a prerequisite. It is sufficient for an AI to understand what to expect and when to call this tool.

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 single parameter 'handle' is not described in the schema (0% coverage), but the description clarifies through examples (e.g., '@aleabitoreddit') that it is an account handle. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: returning authenticity signals and a credibility score to identify impostors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on account verification, not debates, calls, or fundamentals.

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?

The description provides a concrete use case (identifying impostors) and mentions a prerequisite (analyst must be fetched via analyst_views). It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or offer alternatives, but the unique purpose makes it clear.

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