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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read with no external side effects. The description adds that scoring is weighted across 5 criteria, which is useful context, but says nothing about the output shape, scoring scale, or how weights combine. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is an appropriate baseline.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that state the purpose immediately. The trailing external URL is mildly promotional and adds no invocation value for an agent, a minor blemish on otherwise efficient prose.

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 scoring tool with no output schema, the description omits what the result looks like (numeric score, tier, breakdown by criterion), which an agent would want. Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations and inputs are fully documented, so the gap is narrow but real.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description with weight and meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions '5 weighted criteria' generically but adds no syntax or interpretation beyond the enum semantics already documented.

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 (score) and resource (whether a product supports product-led growth), and explicitly contrasts the target motion with hybrid and sales-led approaches. An agent can distinguish this from plotting siblings like product_market_fit_scoring_grader or growth_strategy_prioritization_tool without opening the schema.

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 explains what it evaluates but never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g. product_market_fit_scoring_grader, growth_strategy_prioritization_tool). There are no prerequisites or exclusion conditions, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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