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

Annotations confirm side effects (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world interaction, but the description enriches this with concrete behavioral specifics: 12 credits per post, typical 5–20 posts, a few minutes duration, and the need to confirm the cost with the user. These are genuinely useful and not present in structured annotations.

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 three tight sentences that front-load the core operation, then give the critical cost and workflow details. No sentence is wasted, and the length matches the needed complexity.

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 state-changing, cost-incurring tool with no output schema, the description covers the full critical path: what it does, cost, time, user confirmation, and which sibling tools to use for reading and pruning results. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 schema lists only campaign_id with zero description coverage. The description's phrase 'the campaign's discovery pipeline' implies campaign_id identifies which campaign to use, but it does not explain the parameter further, its expected format, or where to obtain it. Some meaning is added, but at 0% schema coverage the description could compensate more.

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 runs the campaign's discovery pipeline, scrapes social platforms for matching posts, and drafts community replies. This gives a specific resource and action that distinguishes it from later reading (get_posts) and pruning (review_posts), even though it does not explicitly name alternative discovery tools like find_opportunities.

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 explicitly tells the agent to check_balance first, confirm the spend with the user, and then follow with get_posts and review_posts. This is clear contextual guidance on prerequisites and follow-up actions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternate discovery/research tools.

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