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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value beyond this by stating 'no authentication, no rate limit' and explaining the conditional behavior for no-argument versus dimension-argument calls. It does not contradict annotations, and it provides useful operational context.

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 tight and front-loaded: it states the return value, then call variants, then use case, then operational constraints. Every sentence contributes distinct information without 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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens with no arguments, what happens with a dimension number or keyword, when to use it, and that it requires no auth or rate limiting. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already covers the single optional dimension parameter at 100% with examples and the omit behavior, so the description does not add much semantic value beyond what schema provides. The description's call-mode explanation mirrors the schema rather than extending it.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource: zRev's go-to-market due diligence checklist with 47 questions across ten dimensions, including data-room artifacts and red flags. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_benchmarks or about_zrev, which address 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when a user is assessing a company's revenue engine before an investment or acquisition') and also explains the two calling modes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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