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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the no-job/no-charge claim largely restates the safe-read profile. The description adds little beyond that, such as output shape, validation failure behavior, or rate limits.

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?

One clean sentence with the core action and constraints front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 5-parameter nested tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits parameter guidance and return-shape information. Annotations cover safety, but they do not compensate for the missing invocation details.

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%, and the description only alludes to 'detected targets' without defining items/target/detection_token, export_type, count, options, or timezone. Required parameters remain opaque, leaving the agent unable to infer how to construct valid input.

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 specific actions (validate detected targets, quote total credits) and explicitly excludes creating jobs or charging, which distinguishes it from create_export_jobs. An agent can identify this as a dry-run quoting tool from the description alone.

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?

Clearly signals use for pre-creation validation and cost quoting, and rules out job creation/charging. However, it does not name create_export_jobs as the follow-up action or explain when to prefer detect_export_target or get_credit_balance.

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