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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious fact that the call is free (no credit spend) and discloses the plan/allowance information returned (free search/suggest left, $19/month weekly run). The 'read-only' restatement duplicates the annotation but is minor. No rate limits or failure modes are mentioned.

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 return contents are front-loaded in the first sentence and the actionable guidance follows, with no filler sentences. The heavy parenthetical and em-dash nesting makes it slightly harder to scan than it could be, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so concretely (pinned people, moments with their definition, plan state). Combined with the single well-documented parameter and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the absence of any mention of empty-state behavior is the only notable gap.

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% and the single space_id parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the list_content_spaces and setup_content_space routing. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('quote authority on one content space') and enumerates the three things returned: pinned people, the latest search's moments, and the user's plan. It even defines what a moment is (one person's own X post with a single clear claim/prediction/explanation), which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like find_quote_moments or suggest_quote_people, so it misses the top tier.

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?

'Use it first to see what is already there' gives clear sequencing guidance, and 'Draft from a moment with draft_quote_post' routes the agent to the correct next tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of find_quote_moments, which leaves a small gap versus a perfect score.

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