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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the cost profile (no AI-gateway spend, citations only classified never fetched), the fact that it is not real-time polling, the presence of `scopeNote` on every analysed response, and the null-vs-empty-array semantics of aiCitationPlatforms. This is substantial behavioral context an agent could not get from annotations or schema.

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 dense but front-loads the core purpose ('Media Monitoring: ...') and each sentence carries information (cost, caveats, response semantics). It is somewhat verbose and backtick-heavy, but not wasteful.

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 read-only report tool with no output schema, it covers cost, caveats, and return-value semantics well. The one gap is the reference to narrowing on `state`, a parameter absent from this schema, which may confuse an agent about what inputs control the result set.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by clarifying that `citations` is never fetched here and that omitting it yields aiCitationPlatforms: null (distinct from an empty array). This goes beyond the schema's field-level docs.

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 gives a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from the sibling get_unlinked_mentions_report by describing itself as that tool's candidates filtered to known social/forum/news platform domains, with an optional citation-platform merge. It is clear what the tool returns, though the purpose is framed indirectly through another tool rather than stated standalone.

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 some conditional guidance (supply `citations` only from an already-run Prompt Explorer scan; omit to get null) and asserts a cost profile, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_unlinked_mentions_report framing. The instruction to 'ALWAYS narrow on `state` first' references a `state` parameter that does not exist in this schema, which muddies rather than clarifies usage.

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