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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: a credit cost model (3 credits per source, ~15 for a default run) and the default breadth of ~55 platforms. It omits rate limits and any throttling behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and output shape, then usage examples, then exclusions and cost. It is wordy in places (a long output-shape clause), but with no output schema each of those clauses earns its place by describing what comes back.

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 no output schema, the description adequately substitutes by enumerating return fields (source, link, sentiment, buying intent). Cost, default scope and the person-profiling exclusion round it out. Minor flaw: it says '55 places' while the schema says '50+', a small internal inconsistency.

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 67%, above the threshold where the schema carries most of the load. The description explains that sources default to all places and can be narrowed, and frames hours_back as 'the last day', but adds no format details and never addresses the 1-24 hour range enforced in 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: scans for mentions of a named brand/product/topic/person and returns posts, comments, articles and videos with source, link, sentiment and buying-intent flags. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it does NOT build a picture of a person ('for that, ask for a brief'), separating it from get_dossier/enrich_person.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use phrasings ('what are people saying about us today', 'did anyone pick up the launch') and one clear exclusion (person profiling). The alternative is only gestured at as 'ask for a brief', not named as a sibling tool, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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