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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context about billing, failure/empty result not charging, reservation auto-restore, and async job creation with polling, but it does not explicitly explain the destructive side effect implied by destructiveHint, relying on the annotation.

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?

Each sentence carries operational value: what it does, pricing, failure safeguard, prerequisite, and async behavior. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant 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?

For a generic tool with a nested params object, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains the return contract (structured JSON or job_id) and directs the agent to list_capabilities for capability-specific details. It is adequate for correct invocation, though it does not enumerate possible error responses.

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 100% and already documents all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics: set limit to maximum in one call, use mode=async for slow/large tasks, and verify params via list_capabilities, which clarifies parameter usage beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool calls any EveryInfra data-fetching capability and returns structured JSON, with examples of actions such as search/profile/user_posts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like everyinfra_search, so agents must infer its generic role rather than being told directly.

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?

Explicitly instructs to first use everyinfra_list_capabilities to confirm platform/action, required parameters, and max_limit, and recommends mode=async for slow or large-limit tasks. This gives a clear precondition and selects the right mode, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over specific siblings.

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