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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description adds meaningful context: the data spans multiple client surfaces, each returned post includes a Viral Score, and calls are free. It does not cover ordering or recency definition, but for a simple read tool this is solid added value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the returned fields second. The trailing 'Free.' is terse but earns its place as a cost signal.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is returned, from where, and the cost. Only recency window and ordering are unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and the single limit parameter is already documented with default and bounds. The description adds nothing about it, 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 the specific resource (the user's recent ViralRecast queries) and the sources they come from (dashboard, Claude, ChatGPT), plus that each post carries a Viral Score. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_viral_content because it clearly returns past query history rather than live search results, though it never contrasts with them explicitly.

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?

'Free' signals a cost advantage over presumably billable search tools, which is an implicit usage hint. However, there is no explicit statement of when to retrieve history versus re-running a search, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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