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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing exactly what the payload contains — score breakdown, proof apps, prices, revenue estimates, complaint/wish themes, and score history — which tells the agent what it can and cannot answer with this call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the scope and then enumerates the returned data. Every clause names actual content, with no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so thoroughly across score, competitors, pricing, review themes and history. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for an unknown idea_id and how country filters the evidence.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the idea_id format or about the country parameter's effect on which store's data is returned, even though that scoping choice materially changes the results.

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 and resource ('Returns everything Fledly knows about one idea') and enumerates the card contents. It implies the single-idea scope that separates it from list_app_ideas, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail view for a single idea_id versus a listing tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of list_app_ideas as the alternative for browsing.

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