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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it costs a small amount of FreedomOS compute with a few tries per person, it does not take an email or user id (the signed-in person is the subject), and it is meant for someone with no company yet. This is useful operational context that annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing the exact return shape, but with no output schema and read-only semantics, the added cost and subject-scoping context justify a 4.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized: a hook, the input modes, the output, the target user, exclusions, cost, and a routing section. The routing paragraph is slightly repetitive with the opening ('free look before paying' appears twice) and the cost sentence is a bit informal, but every sentence carries functional information and the most decision-relevant facts (what it does, who it's for) are front-loaded. Minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: who can use it, what inputs are acceptable, what it returns at a high level, what it costs, and how it routes relative to get_checkout_link. The main gap is that it doesn't specify the exact response format or fields, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a preview/read operation, the description is still reasonably complete. A 4 reflects that it is strong but not exhaustive.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between the two mutually exclusive input modes (website preferred when it exists, answers as the no-website fallback) and by clarifying that companyId is not the subject here even though it appears in the schema. It also expands the terse answer keys (what, who, week, handoff) into plain-language questions. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions, though not by a huge margin, so a 4 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?

The description opens with a vivid, specific framing ('The free look before paying') and states exactly what the tool does: it takes either a website URL or four short answers and returns the first jobs FreedomOS would take off the person's plate plus what it read on the site. It also names the target user ('signed-in person with no company yet') and explicitly distinguishes it from get_checkout_link, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings 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 provides an explicit routing section: 'no company yet / what would FreedomOS do for my business / read my website / free look before paying → preview_my_business. Then get_checkout_link.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool, what signals route to it, and that get_checkout_link is the follow-up. It also states what the tool does NOT take (email or user id) and that it is for a signed-in person with no company yet, which prevents misuse.

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