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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them with a non-obvious cost model: '7 credits (5 base + 2 sync surcharge); a state adds 2.' That is real decision-relevant behavior the agent cannot get from structured fields. It doesn't mention latency or what a failed/blocked scrape looks like, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the use case, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct information; there is no restatement of the name or 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?

With no output schema, the description does the right work by stating the return is 'the answer with cited sources,' and the cost line covers the main pre-call concern. Slightly incomplete on response shape for the heavier include flags and on what happens when a geo-target is unsupported, but otherwise sufficient for a 4-parameter read tool.

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 state/country/prompt parameters already carry descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by tying the state parameter to a concrete cost and by clarifying country/state targeting, but it says nothing about the nested include flags beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Submit a prompt to Microsoft Copilot from a chosen country ... and return the answer with cited sources.' The geo-targeting scope combined with the vendor name makes it unambiguously distinct from scrape_chatgpt, scrape_gemini, and scrape_perplexity in the sibling list.

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?

'Use this to see how Microsoft Copilot answers a prompt and which brands/sources it mentions' gives a concrete job to be done, and the parameter docs route the agent to list_countries/list_states before calling. What's missing is an explicit contrast with siblings (e.g., 'use scrape_chatgpt for ChatGPT answers'), so the agent must infer that sibling routing itself.

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