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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive flags; the description adds substantial behavior: nothing is charged or locked, applying commits neither side, a human reviews every application and replies by email, and the account-holding threshold causes outright refusal. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then terms, process, precondition, and the accept_terms instruction in a logical order. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight for a high-stakes, irreversible-seeming application, so little is wasted.

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 17-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers purpose, preconditions, process, and consent. It does not describe the response or how review timing/outcome is communicated beyond 'replies to the email', which is a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that accept_terms=true must only be sent after the human has read the terms, and ties the 100,000 ET10 holding requirement to bidding behavior. That is more than re-stating schema text.

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 ('apply to have a rebuilt app spun out as its own startup') and scopes it to the Build it Better program. An agent can distinguish this from bb_startup_bid, bb_startup_line, and bb_search_rebuilt_apps without opening a 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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Turn your App into a Startup'), the hard precondition (account must HOLD 100,000 ET10 or the call is refused), and the accept_terms sequencing rule. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the bidding sibling bb_startup_bid, which is the nearest alternative action.

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