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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: it is free, creates no jobs, and returns a detection_token — none of which is in the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then the key parameter rule, then the cost side-effect. No 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?

For a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return value and the critical export_type caveat, but omits what 'target' accepts (URL vs handle) and what 'options' contains, leaving real 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain export_type well (must be explicit because a URL cannot distinguish followers from following), but 'target' and the nested 'options' object are left completely undefined.

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 concrete verb (validate) plus the artifact it produces (detection_token), which disambiguates the vague 'detect' name. It does not name a sibling tool, but 'creates no jobs' implicitly separates it from create_export_jobs/quote_export_jobs.

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?

'Free; creates no jobs' implies this is a cheap pre-step before job creation, but the description never explicitly says to call it before create_export_jobs or when to skip it. The one guidance sentence is about how to set export_type rather than when to invoke the tool.

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