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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the tool analyzes the account and leverages website, contacts, and campaign history, providing useful context beyond the annotations, but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like response format or potential delays.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only nature, complete schema coverage, and simple parameter set, the description adequately explains the tool's function. However, with no output schema, it doesn't describe the structure of the suggested ICP, which is a minor gap for an agent expecting a specific return value.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'website' and 'campaign history' but does not add detail about the 'description' parameter or how to format the inputs beyond what's already in the 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?

The description uses specific verbs 'analyze' and 'generate' with a clear resource (ICP suggestion) and articulates the data sources (website, existing contacts, campaign history). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_icp' which would retrieve an existing ICP, and 'analyze_contacts' which focuses on contacts.

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 implies the tool is for generating ICP suggestions using account data, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context about the inputs but no exclusionary guidance.

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