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

With no annotations, description fully explains behavior: returns a complete, unstripped idea identical to paid versions. Lists all included sections (debate log, pain evidence, etc.) and states it's free. No side effects or permissions noted, but adequate for a read-only sampling tool.

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 wasted words. First sentence enumerates deliverable content; second sentence states purpose ('Inspect the goods'). Front-loaded with key purpose: free full sample.

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 no parameters and no output schema, description fully informs the agent: returns a complete free idea with specific sections, identical to paid version. No gaps for this simple tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info (unnecessary) but compensates by detailing what the tool returns, adding value beyond the empty schema.

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?

Name and title clearly indicate a free sample of a full idea. Description specifies it delivers a complete idea with detailed sections (council note, debate log, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like get_idea_teaser and get_full_idea.

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?

Explicitly states 'Free' and 'Inspect the goods before spending a cent,' implying use for previewing full ideas without payment. Context from sibling names clarifies when to use this vs teaser or paid versions, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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