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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the cost model ('SPENDS MONEY'), credit-balance bounding, per-tenant daily/monthly caps, the once-a-day-per-product limit, and the required write scope and plan tier. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 the critical 'SPENDS MONEY' warning, then requirements, then limits. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no waste.

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 fully by covering cost, scope requirements, plan eligibility, rate limits, and the money-spending consequence. Nothing an agent needs before invoking a paid mutation is missing.

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 idempotency_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's mention of minting a key restates rather than extends 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 a specific verb+resource: 'run the growth-move generator on demand to top up the Feed with fresh marketing moves.' It names the content domain (SEO, AI visibility, competitors, distribution) and is clearly distinguishable from read siblings like list_feed or get_move.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation ('on demand', 'once a day per product') and prerequisites ('write' scope, paid plan or active trial). It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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