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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: partial row disclosure, ranked-list semantics, and an explicit warning not to sum company financial values. 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?

The description is four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides essential caveats and a sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the burden on the description. The description covers core behavior, partial-data semantics, aggregation restrictions, and the key sibling alternative. Given the large number of parameters, it is not a complete manual, but it is sufficient for correct basic invocation and safe handling of results.

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 only 14% schema description coverage, the description carries a high burden for explaining parameters. It provides useful high-level semantics around rows vs. count groups, ranking, and financial values, but does not detail the 21 parameters. The self-explanatory parameter names and sparse schema descriptions partially compensate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return exact Customer Health KPIs plus paginated company rows or count groups.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly routing open expansion opportunities to get_deals, making the tool's role in the catalog clear.

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 description gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use get_deals for open expansion opportunities.' It also provides use-specific caveats like stating the ranking basis for ranked risk lists. It does not comprehensively contrast against every sibling tool, but it is strong for the main alternative.

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