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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: cached analyses are reused, fresh AI extraction is credit-gated, and charges hit the bound workspace. This is exactly the kind of cost/side-effect disclosure the annotations 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?

Three compact sentences with the scope statement front-loaded and the cost path last. The 'Renamed V2' opener is the one piece of low-value text, but overall there is little 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: caching, credit cost, and workspace charge attribution. Only the url parameter's invocation semantics remain unexplained, which is a minor gap for a plainly named URI field.

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 50%: workspaceId carries a thorough schema description, but url has only format:uri with no textual guidance. The description implies url is the company's own public website but adds no format or constraint detail, so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema.

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: a read-only analysis of a company's own public website. The 'Renamed V2' prefix is internal jargon that adds no selection value, and it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like enrich_companies, but the core purpose is 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?

It gives useful usage context — cached results are reused, fresh extraction is credit-gated, and it routes the agent to campaignstack_estimate_cost before committing. However it never states when to prefer this over sibling enrichment tools or what conditions select it.

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