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

Annotations declare it non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it returns a maximum-credit figure, expiring quote, and explicitly performs no reservation and no research start. That is the key side-effect information an agent needs. Minor tension with readOnlyHint=false, since the description implies no persistent state change, but not a true contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences are dense with non-redundant operational detail. Some clauses are packed via semicolons, but nothing reads as filler.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the critical pitfalls (objective placement, query concision, Reddit multi-term limit, no-credit-reservation). It leaves out what makes the quote "expiring" (its TTL) and how size/comments tiers interact with the credit maximum, which for a nested-schema quoting tool would have been worth one more sentence.

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 0% and the schema is nested, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully clarifies input.objective (put the user's goal there), the query format (concise literal keywords, not the full request), and the five-phrase Reddit searchTerms cap. It says nothing about size, since, country, comments, or platform values, so the compensation is only partial.

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+resource ("Prepare an expiring research quote") and enumerates the exact scope it covers (public Instagram/Facebook, TikTok, Reddit, Meta Ads). The closing clause "does not start research or reserve credits" implicitly separates it from start_research, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it (quote must be obtained before work begins) and specifies query-formulation rules for each source. It does not explicitly name start_research as the follow-up step or state exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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