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

The description openly discloses that the operation 'SPENDS MONEY', requires specific auth scopes, uses an idempotency key, and is bounded by credit balance and rate caps. These details go far beyond the simple readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, providing excellent behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with 'SPENDS MONEY' as an immediate warning. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, prerequisites, limits, and frequency. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, costs, and limits thoroughly. However, it does not mention the return value or whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous, which would be useful given there is no output schema. Still, it is complete enough for a simple trigger action.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter idempotency_key with a description ('Client-minted key (1-200 chars)'). The tool description only repeats 'an Idempotency-Key you mint' without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the action ('run the growth-move generator on demand to top up the Feed') with specific resources (Feed, marketing moves) and domains (SEO, AI visibility, competitors, distribution). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feed or run_loop, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides strong context: it is for on-demand top-ups, requires write scope and a paid plan/trial, and is subject to daily/monthly caps and a once-per-day-per-product limit. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the prerequisites and constraints effectively guide appropriate usage.

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