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

Annotations only say non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds crucial cost/concurrency behavior: 500 credits charged and refunded on failure, and one concurrent run per workspace. It does not disclose the return shape or what happens if a concurrent run already exists, but the disclosed side-effect profile is strong.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and every clause adds useful information: process, cost, refund, concurrency, topics, and follow-up tools. It is sentence-like and dense rather than neatly structured, but there is no padding.

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?

For a complex kickoff tool with no output schema, it covers the essential operational context—cost, refund, concurrency, optional topics, and the exact polling/scheduling tools. It stops short of stating what the tool returns (e.g., a run ID), which an agent would need to start the polling loop immediately.

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 describes topics including its workspace-union default; the description reinforces that topics narrow the search. However, workspaceId has no schema description and the description does not explain how it is used or defaulted, leaving half of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 names a specific action ('Start a lead magnet discovery run') and details the whole pipeline: Google search for last-7-day LinkedIn posts, comment-count fetching, magnet classification, and ranking by reachable commenters. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the numerous sibling lead-magnet tools by framing it as the run-starter, not a list/get/schedule operation.

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 actionable routing: poll get_lead_magnet_run for progress and set_lead_magnet_schedule for weekly recurrence, plus the option to narrow via topics. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions or alternatives for starting vs sourcing lead magnets, but the main follow-up choices are covered.

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