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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool is read-only ('reads only the evidence OEX already holds'), describes the optional website fetch cost, and clarifies the output behavior (cites evidence, returns unknowns for insufficient evidence, zero strategic nodes is valid). This is thorough, though rate limits or authentication needs are not mentioned, keeping it from a 5.

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 relatively long but every sentence earns its place by explaining the tool's scope, behavior, and output guarantees. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates on constraints. Could potentially be tightened by combining the instrument list more succinctly, but it is not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (composite study with optional website inspection) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers return behavior (citations, explicit unknowns, zero nodes). It mentions lineage preservation. Missing details like error handling for invalid businessId or exact output shape, but for a study tool this is sufficient.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful context: it explains that objective is 'carried into the study' and clarifies that inspectWebsite triggers a bounded fetch while omission leads to honest reporting. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. For businessId, the description doesn't add detail, but the overall compensation is strong.

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 defines the tool as running a composite Guided Business Study on a sandbox business, listing all four components (Business Health, Negative Space, Boundary Fracture, Strategic Node Finder). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_business_health or run_business_study_markdown. The verb 'Run' plus the specific resource and components make the purpose unmistakable.

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 states that the tool reads only existing evidence and never fetches the website (unless inspectWebsite is true), and that insufficient evidence yields explicit unknowns. It provides strong context for when this tool is appropriate—when you need the full composite analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving a small gap.

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