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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuine side-effect context beyond them: the quote 'expires,' 'shows maximum credits,' and neither starts research nor reserves credits — valuable for a tool whose annotation set alone would not clarify the credit/no-commit semantics.

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-loads the verb+resource and platform scope, then adds targeted input guidance. Each sentence carries information; just slightly dense with multiple nested clauses, but no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description concentrates on the non-obvious nested input semantics and no-commit behavior. Given the nested object structure it covers the highest-risk fields well, though boundary params like size/country remain schema-only.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for the semantically hard fields: it directs the goal into input.objective, mandates 'concise literal keywords, never the full user request' for query, and notes Reddit's five searchTerms limit. It leaves size, since, country, comments, and platform enum to the schema, so it is not fully complete.

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 verb ('Prepare...quote') plus the resource (research quote) and enumerates supported platforms, making it clearly distinguishable from start_research and cancel_research. An agent can tell this is the quoting/preview step without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly clarifies the boundary: 'does not start research or reserve credits,' which routes the agent to start_research for actual collection. It stops short of naming that sibling outright or stating the full pre-flight workflow, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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