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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't repeat that. It adds useful context that the tool does not start an assessment or save customer data, which goes beyond the annotation flags and clarifies side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and use cases, exclusions, and non-actions. Front-loaded and concise with no redundant 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?

The description conveys the core purpose, target users, and exclusions. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It differentiates from start_assessment but could have explicitly contrasted with describe_assessment; still, the fit-decision purpose is clear enough.

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 coverage is low (25%) with only primary_need having a description. The description adds semantic meaning to primary_need by listing the specific needs (workflow automation, revenue growth, etc.), which helps map to enum values. However, it does not explain business_stage, client_name, or wants_personalized_assessment, leaving gaps for those parameters.

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 a specific action ('decide whether TEK BOSS fits') and lists the target use cases (AI strategy, workflow automation, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'It does not start an assessment,' making it distinct from start_assessment.

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 says when to use ('Use this read-only tool to decide...') and when NOT to use ('Do not use it for casual AI education, personal projects, or non-business requests'). It also clarifies boundary behaviors ('does not start an assessment'), giving clear guidance versus alternatives.

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