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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly says 'read-only' (matching the readOnlyHint) and 'never retrieves customer data,' which provides useful reassurance about data access. It also clarifies scope by stating it explains both the free result and inapplicability, adding value beyond the structured 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 succinct and front-loaded with the primary use case. It packs essential information into two sentences without redundancy, earning its place for every clause.

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 (1 optional param, output schema present, no nested objects), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral boundaries. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its data access limitations, making it complete for this context.

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 sole parameter client_name is fully described in the schema with a clear description. The tool description does not mention it, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to explain the TEK BOSS Assessment to business owners with specific AI-related questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on describing the assessment and its appropriateness, rather than starting or evaluating fit.

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 explicitly lists the scenarios ('when a business owner asks...') and even mentions when the assessment is not appropriate. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, and while it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the context makes the boundary clear.

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