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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious operating behavior: it must interrogate the user one question at a time rather than inferring or fabricating answers. This is valuable agent-facing guidance beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about latency, failure modes, or output shape.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it produces, how to elicit inputs, and when to invoke. Front-loaded with the outcome and zero filler.

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 compensates by naming the three deliverables (growth stage, priority gap, week-by-week plan), and the inputs are fully specified in the schema. An agent has everything needed to select and sequence the call correctly.

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% with enums fully enumerated for all five parameters, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description only refers to 'five answers' generically and adds no parameter-level detail. 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 transformation with concrete outputs: five answers in, growth stage + first gap + week-by-week 30-day plan out. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agency_pricing_benchmarks or get_playbook, which produce different artifacts.

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?

Names the trigger conditions explicitly (agency owner asking what to focus on next, or why growth stalled), which is a clear when-to-use. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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