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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description reinforces it by stating "No auth required" and describing the return shape as one line per outcome mapped to a tool. What it does not cover is edge behavior — e.g. what happens when the requested outcome has no match, or whether the menu is static — but for a discovery/menu tool the remaining gap is small.

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 three-sentence structure is front-loaded with the identity, then the entry-point instruction, then the next step. Wording like "DISCOVERY TIER 0" is mildly jargon-heavy and the all-caps emphasis is stylized, but no sentence is redundant.

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 zero-required-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the entry point, the return format, and the follow-up path. The only omission is what an agent should do if its outcome is not on the menu, which is a minor gap given simpler.directory is already named.

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 the single optional `outcome` parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a light gloss ("in a few words... the answer is that outcome's one line and its tool"), which restates rather than extends the schema's meaning — the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — it is an outcome menu that maps each common business outcome to exactly one tool, with one-line notes. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling catalog tool (simpler.directory) and emphasizes that composite outcomes are accomplished in ONE call, which an agent could not infer from the name alone.

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?

Explicit routing is provided: "START HERE for a business task," then either call the named tool directly or fall back to simpler.directory for the full catalog. This gives both the when-to-use condition and the concrete alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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