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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a 60-day retention boundary and a two-tier pricing rule tied to the report's created date. It omits pagination/result-size behavior (limit defaults to 20, caps at 100) and says nothing about what a listing entry contains, which matters for a credit-consuming workflow.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the retention window and the free-of-charge property. The second sentence spends most of its length on a sibling tool's pricing rule, which is useful routing context but slightly displaces detail about this tool's own results.

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 simple read-only list with no output schema, the agent still lacks the shape of a returned report entry, whether results are paginated, and how the required platform narrows the listing. Retention and cost — the highest-risk unknowns — are covered well, so this is adequate but leaves gaps an agent must discover by calling.

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 description coverage is 67%: query and platform are documented in the schema, while limit relies on default/min/max only. The description adds nothing about any parameter — not that platform is required, nor that query filters by username or name, nor the page-size cap — so the schema does all the work here.

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 makes clear this returns a history of previously purchased reports bounded by a 60-day window, and 'listing is free' confirms it is a retrieval, not a generation, operation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_influencer_report by framing that tool as the way to reopen a specific report, though it never states the verb 'list' or that results are scoped to the required platform.

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?

The cost framing gives the agent a real decision rule: check this free listing before spending credits, and note that reopening a report older than 30 days costs 1 credit. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement and never mentions when this tool would be the wrong choice.

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