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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds important behavior: costly runs quote a price first, users must be shown billing.display, links must be passed whole, and errors should be handled via error.fix. The credit tables also disclose the cost model, though the description does not mention the free handle re-read behavior.

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 front-loads the core action in the first sentence and then spends the rest on concrete, necessary details: cost confirmation, billing display, error handling, and sub-tool inputs. Despite being dense, every sentence carries operational 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?

For a dispatcher with nested inputs and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling contract: sub-tool names, their inputs, cost confirmation, billing display, and error handling. It still lacks sibling routing guidance and a clear description of successful output, with handle reuse documented only in the schema.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tool, handle, and inputs. The description goes further by enumerating the nested inputs for batch_stats and viral_finder, marking optional fields, and listing platform- and scale-specific credit costs; only window and confirm semantics remain thin.

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 identifies this as a dispatcher that runs one of two named sub-tools, batch_stats or viral_finder, and gives brief labels for each. It does not distinguish the tool from the many research-related siblings, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by enumerating the two supported sub-tools and their inputs, but it never states when to use research instead of siblings such as search, trending, or brand_buzz. Procedural notes about cost, links, and error.fix are useful but are invocation guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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