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

Adds genuinely useful cost disclosure not present in annotations (1 search credit, 2 if >3 ZHomes calls, plus enrichment credits when auto_enrich is on). However, with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false already declared, the description never explains what the run actually does that is destructive—whether it sends outreach/messages, and that triggering twice spends credits twice.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its timing semantics, then the cost. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 non-idempotent, destructive, open-world trigger with no output schema, the description covers cost but not downstream effects—what side effects the run has, whether it can be undone, or where to verify results. Enough to call it, but not enough to call it safely.

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 parameter already documents that the id is a UUID from a Spur list/search tool. The description adds no additional constraint or format guidance, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (run a search automation) plus the key distinguishing scope: immediately rather than on its schedule. It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from siblings like spur_list_search_automations or spur_create_search_automation, but the 'run now' framing is unambiguous.

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 'instead of waiting for its schedule' phrasing implies when to use it (manual on-demand trigger), but there are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives—e.g., that automation_id must come from spur_list_search_automations, or that spur_get_automation_logs is how you inspect the result.

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