Find buying-intent posts on Reddit

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that this runs a specific third-party Apify Actor on the caller's own Apify account, quotes per-lead and per-post-read pricing, and states a $0.5 per-call spend cap — critical operational context an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint. It also describes what each returned lead contains (intent tag plus the triggering phrase), which is genuinely additive.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, output contract second, cost/execution model third. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling, and the most decision-relevant content (what a lead is, what it costs) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the lead structure usefully. With zero required parameters, six optional knobs, and a nested free-form extra_input, the definition is nearly complete — the only real gap is not telling the agent what happens if categories/competitors are omitted, i.e. what the default search actually covers.

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 100% and every parameter carries an example-bearing description ('CRM', 'HubSpot', 'smallbusiness'), so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-specific — notably silent on extra_input, the riskiest parameter, which merges arbitrary fields over Actor defaults.

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 with a clear qualifier: Reddit posts/comments exhibiting buying intent, enumerated as asking for a tool, seeking alternatives, comparing, or complaining. The four named intent tags make the output shape concrete. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling search_reddit, leaving the agent to infer the difference from 'buying intent' alone.

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 use case is strongly implied by 'people ask for a tool like yours' and the competitor/category framing, so an agent can infer when this fits. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer the sibling search_reddit for generic Reddit lookups — that routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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