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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses the ranking factors (text match, 30-day users, run success rate), the result cap of 10, the per-event price and x402 run URL in results, and the billing behavior on empty matches. It omits auth/credential requirements and whether repeated calls are rate limited.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the cost caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the result contents (ranked actors, per-event price, x402 run URL) and the empty-match behavior. With no annotations, the remaining gap is the permission/auth model and any rate limits, which an agent might want before 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely corroborates limit ('up to 10'), max_price_usd ('per-event price') and x402_only ('x402 run URL'), but adds no semantics beyond what the schema fields already state.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Picks Apify Store actors' for a scraping/automation task, with two concrete example needs ('instagram posts', 'google maps places'). It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling find_x402_endpoints, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with given the x402 mentions.

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?

Usage is implied by the example task phrasings, and the 'x402 run URL' / 'not charged when nothing matches' details hint at the purchase flow. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus find_x402_endpoints or x402_endpoint_card, and no stated prerequisites.

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