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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: results include live sources only 'when the daily search budget allows', flagging a rate/budget constraint and output variability that no annotation conveys.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the payoff (the verdict and its components) before the input instructions. No filler, and the budget caveat is compactly stated rather than buried.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers input format and the shape of the return value well, including the budget-dependent sourcing. A brief note on what happens when the budget is exhausted or how large a site is crawled would close the remaining 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% and the single 'idea' parameter is already documented as 'The idea, or a URL to read'. The description restates this and adds a mild constraint (one or two sentences) plus the alternative of passing a site URL, but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 names the resource precisely ('a business idea or a live site') and enumerates the returned verdict components (who pays, biggest risk, cheapest test), so an agent knows exactly what product comes back. It never uses an explicit action verb like 'validate' and relies on the title for the verb, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 only guidance is about input shape ('the idea in one or two sentences, or the site's URL'), which is really parameter framing rather than when-to-use. There is no statement of when this tool is the right choice versus the sibling tools (find_people_asking, draft_reply, etc.), nor any exclusions.

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