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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: 'No live source lookup' (so results are static/cached guidance, not fresh data), a cap of three sources, and the shape of the returned plan — which substitutes for an output schema. It omits permissions, side effects, and rate/limit behavior, so it clears the minimum bar but not much beyond it.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the deliverable and its contents, then append the crucial 'No live source lookup' constraint and defaults. The list-heavy middle is dense but each item carries distinct information; nothing is 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?

Given 4 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does substantial lifting by describing the plan's contents and parameter defaults. Remaining gaps are minor: no guidance on what a good use_case looks like (schema covers it) and no statement of constraints or determinism of the result.

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 low (25%, only use_case), so the description must compensate — and it largely does. 'cost at your monthly volume' ties the volume parameter to pricing, 'resale terms' explains the resell enum, and 'Defaults: volume 0, US, no resale' documents the defaults for three otherwise-undocumented parameters (volume, geo, resell). Only the semantics of geo beyond its default and volume units are left implicit.

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 states a concrete deliverable (a free Data Finder plan for up to three sources) and enumerates its contents (fit, cost, resale terms, URL/read date, DIY guidance), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't need to distinguish itself from siblings like get_transcript or make_qr, which are unrelated. Clarity is slightly undercut because the description sells the output more than stating the action, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Context is only implied: the tool produces a plan rather than a live search, and the 'No live source lookup' caveat tells the agent this is not a real-time data query. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement against alternatives, though no sibling tool overlaps this space. Adequate but thin.

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