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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds useful context beyond them: it is free, it is data-collection only, and it returns platform/action, required and optional params, row limits (max_limit vs page_size), price, allowed values, and field meanings. There is no output schema, so this return-content disclosure carries real weight.

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 and dense with useful information; every clause is relevant. It is slightly cramped, with a long parenthetical and a multi-clause second sentence that could be broken up, but there is no 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 one-param discovery tool with no output schema, it covers what is returned, when to call it, cost, parameter effects, and how it differs from everyinfra_call_api and everyinfra_chat. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 the optional platform param with examples. The description still adds value by explaining the effect of supplying it (you additionally get allowed values, returned fields, and their meanings), which goes beyond the schema text.

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 ('List EveryInfra's data platforms and capabilities') and quantifies scope (106 platforms / 573 capabilities). It explicitly separates itself from both key siblings: it must be called before everyinfra_call_api and is not for chat (everyinfra_chat).

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 an explicit sequencing rule ('Use it before everyinfra_call_api') and an explicit exclusion ('for AI chat use everyinfra_chat'). The conditional use of the platform param ('Pass a platform to also get allowed values...') is also spelled out.

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