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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: the no-license branch returns an executive preview plus an instant checkout link. It still does not disclose latency, rate limits, or whether generation has 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, front-loaded with purpose, then deliverables, then the conditional license behavior. No wasted clauses, though the enumeration of four deliverables is slightly list-heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still sketches the document's contents and the free-preview fallback. For a low-parameter, read-only generation tool this is close to complete; only sibling-routing guidance is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters and their defaults (Mistral AI, Frankfurt hosting, Polar license) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the license-key behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Generate an Executive Trust & Compliance Dossier') and enumerates its deliverables (Executive Passport, flow diagram, evidence grid, memo). It clearly differs in kind from the sibling regulation-lookup tools, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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 'for B2B enterprise procurement and vendor onboarding' clause implies the use context, and the license-key sentence implies a free-preview path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against siblings like answer_procurement_question or audit_local_ai_stack.

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