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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the output is a DRAFT (not an active agent) and the opportunity's numbers are copied in as goals, which is a real side effect worth knowing. No mention of permissions, limits, or return value.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the default-targeting rule front-loaded. Every clause 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?

All three parameters are covered by the schema, no parameters are required, and there is no output schema or nested structure to explain, so the description is nearly sufficient. Its only gap is that it never says what comes back (e.g. the new agent's id), which an agent creating a draft would likely want.

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%, so the schema already documents name, quadrant, and opportunity_id, including the 'omit = top-ranked unbuilt' default. The description largely restates those defaults and adds only an example value (quick_win). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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: 'Create a DRAFT agent from an opportunity's Blueprint with its numbers as the agent's goals.' That is far more informative than a bare 'build'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like build_agent, create_agent, or create_from_blueprint, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

It explains the selection default ('No id = the top-ranked unbuilt opportunity, optionally in quadrant'), which is genuine usage guidance for picking the target. But it never says when to use this over the alternatives (build_agent, create_from_blueprint) or what prerequisites exist. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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