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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the computation detail that the three scores are averaged, which is useful, but it says nothing about the ranking output order, ties, or what is returned.

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 first sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the second sentence is purely promotional ('See the full version at https://...') and contributes nothing an agent needs to call the tool, so it does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description only implies a ranked result and never describes the return shape (ordered list, score values). For a self-contained scoring tool with strong annotations this is adequate but leaves the output under-specified.

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% and each field (name, impact, confidence, ease) is documented with its 1-10 range. The description adds only the 'averaged' aggregation rule beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Rank) and resource (growth ideas) plus the exact scoring mechanism (ICE = Impact, Confidence, Ease averaged, each 1-10). No sibling tool does ICE prioritization of growth ideas, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

'to decide what to run next' implies the decision context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no named sibling to contrast with. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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