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

The description discloses important behavior: it consumes one credit, returns structured evidence, and requires specific inputs. However, it directly contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation: consuming a credit on every call is a side effect, so repeated identical calls would have additional effects. This is an annotation contradiction.

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?

Four sentences with no filler: use case, requirements, return contents, credit cost, and exclusions. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Combined with a full input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers when to use, prerequisites, cost/side effect, return value, and boundary conditions. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only that businessName and website are required, which duplicates the schema's required list. It does not materially clarify country or objective beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 states precisely what the tool does: it produces practical, evidence-based growth opportunities for a specific small business, with concrete goals listed (revenue, margins, costs, Google visibility, conversion, prioritisation). It clearly separates this tool from the sibling credit-management tools by focusing on analysis output. No ambiguity remains.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with user goals, explicit prerequisites (business name and public website), and explicit exclusions (generic definitions, investment/regulated advice, private financial data). This is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate and when it is not.

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