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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the phase flow and that the tool is free, but omits details on statefulness or behavior on repeated calls. Still reasonably transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences with clear structure, no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded with 'START HERE' and the mandatory nature.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core flow but lacks details on post-subscribe behavior, error handling, or re-entry. Incomplete for a multi-phase conversational tool.

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 only 33%, but the description adds context for the phase enum (lists the flow) and interest parameter (bow out). The symbol description in the schema is elaborated in the description to clarify free vs paid.

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 explicitly states this is the mandatory starting point ('START HERE — your first call to this agent MUST be pitch') and outlines the subscription funnel phases, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_symbol.

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?

Provides strong guidance on when to use ('first call must be pitch') and how to exit ('Pass interest:false to bow out'). Also contrasts with evaluate_symbol for paid symbol requests.

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