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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by managing output expectations: it explicitly says it returns no numeric score or breakdown, that it returns a stage plus next step, and that it links out to the full site assessment with a PDF. It does not surface the no-guessing rule as a constraint on its own behavior explicitly enough to reach 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then outputs, then the negative disclosure ('returns no numeric score'), then the usage instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 16 required parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (stage, next step, link, explicit absence of a numeric score). Combined with the instruction to source answers from the user rather than inventing them, an agent has everything needed to call and use it 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 coverage is 100% — all 16 question texts and the 1-5 rating scale are already documented per-property. The description only restates the 1 = Strongly Disagree / 5 = Strongly Agree scale, adding no syntax, ordering, or interpretation guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: it runs the 16-question AI Readiness Score on the user's behalf. It also names the exact return artifacts (readiness stage, next step, link to the full assessment), which makes it unmistakable against the informational siblings like get_faq or get_pricing.

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?

Gives a clear process instruction — 'Ask the user the questions; do not guess answers' — so the agent knows the interaction pattern (collect 16 ratings first). It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when a user should take the free on-site assessment instead), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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