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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the asynchronous return behavior, expected generation latency, cost model (one credit held now and spent only if a non-empty brief is ready), zero-cost failure behavior, and safe idempotent retry semantics. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a non-read-only, open-world operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it immediately states purpose, return behavior, latency, next step, cost, and retry semantics. Every sentence carries useful operational information with no 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?

For an async, billable, idempotent operation, it covers the essential contract: what is returned, how long generation takes, what to call next, when credits are spent, and how retries behave. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain response fields.

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 domain, lookback_days, and idempotency_key thoroughly. The description reinforces idempotency_key retry behavior but does not add meaning for domain or lookback_days beyond the schema, so this is the baseline level.

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 states a specific verb and resource: start a competitive-intelligence brief for one company. It also makes the async contract explicit (returns brief_id immediately, generation takes 3–6 minutes), which clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_brief.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: start this tool, then poll with get_brief after poll_after_seconds, and reuse idempotency_key to avoid duplicate briefs. It does not explain when to prefer check_company or list_briefs instead, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives routing statement.

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