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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: no auth, no state changes, no charges, returns approved positioning, and explicitly warns agents not to invent competitor claims. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps prevent misuse.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds key safety and operational context. No redundant wording 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?

The tool is well-supported by a rich schema, output schema, and annotations. The description covers the essential behavioral caveat (don't invent competitor claims) and operational traits (no auth, no charges). Given the output schema exists, return format details are unnecessary, and nothing critical 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?

Both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description references 'named alternatives' and 'use case' but does not add new parameter syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 compares Cannon Studio's fit against named alternatives for a use case. This is a specific verb ('compare') with a clear resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like recommend_workflow or search.

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 usage when a user asks for a comparison against specific competitor tools for a job-to-be-done. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or reference sibling tools, but the 'for a use case' phrasing provides clear context, and the caution not to invent competitor claims gives important behavioral guidance.

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