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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: false, etc.), the description adds critical operational context: '5 credits' cost and '20-30s' latency. It also discloses return values (positioning snapshot, narrative lens, flags) despite no output schema being present.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 defines action/cost/timing, sentence 2 lists return values, sentence 3 establishes pipeline position, sentence 4 gives parameter sourcing instructions. Information is front-loaded and dense.

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?

Given this is a multi-step pipeline tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what gets returned (session_id, lens, flags), the orchestration pattern, credit costs, and parameter provenance. No critical gaps remain for agent invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage establishing a baseline of 3, the description adds valuable semantic context by specifying that cv_version_id comes from 'ceevee_upload_cv or ceevee_list_versions' and explaining that session_id is used to resume existing sessions in the pipeline context.

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 specific verb 'Run' with resource 'market positioning analysis on a CV version' and clearly distinguishes itself as 'step 1 of the 3-step positioning pipeline' from siblings like ceevee_get_opportunities and ceevee_confirm_lens.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance with arrow notation showing the full pipeline (analyze_positioning -> ceevee_get_opportunities -> ceevee_confirm_lens), specifies to 'Pass the returned session_id to subsequent steps', and indicates prerequisite tools for obtaining cv_version_id.

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