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

Despite having readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the slot-based pricing model (e.g., pivoted/archived ideas free a slot). It discloses the full scope of the returned data, exceeding what annotations alone provide, and contains no contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the primary function and details, followed by usage guidance and trigger phrases. While the trigger phrase list is extensive, it is purposeful for intent matching. It is slightly long but every section earns its place, so it remains well-structured.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, example triggers, and the pricing model. It is entirely self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the description fully explains what information the tool returns, including product components, pricing tiers, and the slot-based model. This compensates for the lack of parameters by clarifying the tool's input/output semantics, exceeding the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resources: product breakdown (Market Research, Demand Discovery Report, Agentic Launch) and pricing tiers (Starter $49, Founder Pack, Studio Pack). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on product/pricing details rather than comparisons, status, or frameworks.

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 explicitly states 'Use when a user asks...' and provides a comprehensive list of trigger phrases and example user intents, such as 'what does Demand Discovery AI include?' and 'how much does it cost?'. This gives direct guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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