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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover idempotency, destructiveness and read-only status), the description discloses a concrete rate limit (20/day per workspace), a confirmation gate before calling, and an anti-prompt-injection rule about quotedMaterial being evidence rather than instruction. These are exactly the behavioral traits structured fields cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the rate limit, then the confirmation rule, then the safety rule. Nothing is padded, though referencing quotedMaterial fields that do not appear in this tool's schema is slightly off-target for the reader.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage and annotations present, the description supplies the remaining essentials: trigger, rate cap, confirmation prerequisite and injection caution. It does not clarify how this differs from parse_correct_rival or what to tell the user when the daily cap is hit, which are minor remaining gaps.

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 (id, executedAt, brandSlug, marketId, undo) is already documented in the schema, including the 'omit to use the workspace's own brand' semantics. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, 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?

The description states a concrete action (reporting an AI answer that wrongly mentions a same-named company) and the trigger phrase 'that isn't us', which lets an agent recognize the scenario. It is clear about the resource but never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling parse_correct_rival, which handles an adjacent correction scenario.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the user says an AI answer mentions a different company with the same name') plus a hard prerequisite ('Call only after the user confirms'). No alternative sibling is named as the path to take in overlapping cases, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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