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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: requires an API key, consumes no credits, initiates nothing, and enumerates what the quote reports (recent coverage, already-saved places, remaining searches, max credit cost).

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-loads the purpose in the first clause and follows with two short, high-value sentences about auth and cost. Slightly long single opening sentence but no wasted text.

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 enumerating the four figures the quote returns, so an agent knows what it gets back. A minor gap is that it doesn't describe response format or how the maximum credit cost is composed.

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%, so every parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description references concepts like keywords and area but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('See what collecting an area would cost before you start it') and frames the operation as a pre-flight estimate, which cleanly separates it from create_collection.

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?

Explicitly says to use it before starting a collection and clarifies it 'starts nothing' and 'costs no credits', making the timing and cost condition clear. It does not name create_collection as the follow-up alternative, but the pre-flight framing makes the intent unambiguous.

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