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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it's free, it reveals per-call row limits (max_limit vs page_size) and price, and it describes what a platform-scoped call returns. It stops short of describing pagination or output format details, keeping it from 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?

Dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical pre-call workflow instruction. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical platform/action/param enumeration is slightly list-heavy and could be tightened.

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 no-output-schema discovery tool, the description covers what the agent needs: what gets returned (platform/action, required/optional params, row limits, price, allowed values, field meanings), the cost (free), and the correct ordering relative to everyinfra_call_api.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: passing 'platform' unlocks allowed values, returned fields, and their semantics, and it names example platforms. This tells the agent why to supply the optional parameter, 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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (EveryInfra's data platforms and capabilities) with concrete scope (90 platforms / 413 capabilities). It immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming everyinfra_call_api and everyinfra_chat in context.

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?

Explicit sequencing instruction: 'Use it before everyinfra_call_api'. It also states a clear exclusion: 'Data collection only — for AI chat use everyinfra_chat.' An agent knows exactly when to pick this over the alternatives.

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