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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it consumes no search credit and performs no search. The note that exclusions are honored by omitting filters is useful semantic disclosure. It stops short of describing the exact shape of the returned argument set, which is the only remaining gap.

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-loaded with the core promise, then cost/credit rationale, then chaining guidance, then exclusion semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what the return is (arguments passable directly to spur_search_properties) plus the caveats on carrying location/status forward. An agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description earns a step up by clarifying that the query is plain-English and that filters, events, and exclusions are all parsed out of it — meaning the agent knows free-form phrasing is acceptable.

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 and resource — show how Spur interprets a plain-English property search into filters and events — with the crucial qualifier 'without running it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling spur_search_properties, which actually executes the search.

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 explicit when-to-use ('confirm intent before spending a credit', 'turn a vague request into explicit filters') and names the downstream alternative, spur_search_properties, with a constraint on reusing location/status. Exclusions handling is also spelled out.

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