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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds operational details not in annotations: 'static content, no arguments, no authentication, no rate limit.' This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies the tool's behavior for an agent.

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, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then operational details. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists exactly what the profile contains (firm, fit, non-fit, service lines with links, contact details). It also covers when to use it and operational constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description explicitly states 'no arguments,' which reinforces the interface and leaves no ambiguity. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description confirms it without extra fluff.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('a plain-text profile of zRev AI'), enumerating the exact contents (firm info, fit, service lines, contact). This distinguishes it from siblings like cold_read or estimate_roi, which serve different purposes.

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 provides an explicit trigger: 'Use this first when a user asks who zRev is, what it offers, or whether it suits their company.' This gives clear context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the 'first' wording implies sequencing.

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