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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description correctly adds value by detailing the returned information (product tiers, slot-based model). It explains the 'slot-based model where pivoted/archived ideas free a slot' – behavioral context beyond the 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 concise: two sentences plus a list of trigger phrases. Each sentence adds essential value – first states the return value, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the most critical information.

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's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and even explains the slot-based pricing model. No gaps remain.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% with empty properties). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter info, and it doesn't, which is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it returns 'full product breakdown' and 'pricing tiers' with specific details like 'Starter $49, Founder Pack of 5 ideas, Studio Pack of 25 ideas, all using a slot-based model'. This specific verb+resource (returns product details and pricing) clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'explain_demand_signals' or 'start_agentic_launch'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when a user asks...' and lists multiple trigger phrases (e.g., 'how much does it cost', 'what's included'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, the strong 'when-to-use' indication is clear and helpful for an AI agent.

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