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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context: daily tool credits, citing returned URLs, and array argument formatting, though it does not explain credit exhaustion or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded, dense, and mostly waste-free. The credit-parenthetical is slightly awkward, but the example, citation rule, and list-array note all earn their place.

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 the open-world tool dispatch and lack of output schema, the description gives enough context to call it: where the tool id comes from, an example input, citation expectations, and array handling. It could be stronger by mentioning error handling or credit-exhaustion behavior, but the core usage path is complete.

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 already 100%, so the schema handles parameter definitions well. The description adds practical meaning with a concrete example for the tool id/input pairing and the note that list arguments are arrays.

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 and resource: "Run a read-only Edge live data tool from find_tool," with data-domain examples. It clearly implies a distinct role from find_tool, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling use_skill.

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 a clear usage context by tying the tool to find_tool and listing the data domains it covers. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly with use_skill, but the prerequisite and examples provide adequate guidance.

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