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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a pre-call discovery/capability listing, not the actual data fetch, and it excludes cleaning workflows. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences each earn their place: the first defines the resource, the second gives explicit usage guidance, and the third sets boundaries. Front-loaded and 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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the key output fields (platform/action, parameters, max_limit, price) and specifies when to use it. For a read-only metadata listing tool with a single optional parameter, nothing essential 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 the optional platform parameter is already described with examples in the schema. The description does not add much about the input parameter itself, but it does explain what information will be available in the output, which is sufficient given the schema's coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: it lists EveryInfra's supported platforms and data-scraping capabilities, including scale (89 platforms/405 items) and capability types. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by stating it only covers data scraping and pointing to separate cleaning tools.

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 tells the agent to use this before calling everyinfra_call_api, and specifies what to look for: platform/action, required/optional parameters, max_limit, and unit price. It also states what it does not cover—EveryData cleaning—and routes that to the appropriate tool.

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