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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: the output is grounded in verified facts, suggestions are constrained to documented abilities, and each tool's capabilities/cost/app support are included. It omits response size and pagination details.

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, front-loaded with the 'Use FIRST' directive, then the return contract. The parenthetical tool lists add concrete examples rather than waste, though the second sentence is dense enough to test readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: verified per-tool facts on read/change/cost/apps plus workflow design rules. What's missing is guidance on the optional 'goal' and 'role' inputs, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 50%: 'app' and 'tools' are documented in the schema, while 'goal' and 'role' are bare. The description indirectly covers the tools list and app context ('which apps it works in'), but says nothing about how role or goal shape the brief, nor about the enum values (sdr/ae/cs/leader/revops/marketing, claude_ai/chatgpt/dev/other).

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 (build a stack brief) and scopes it precisely: returns verified facts about the user's named sales/marketing/CS tools plus workflow design rules. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_tool or search_tools by its 'exactly those tools' framing, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions: 'Use FIRST whenever someone asks what they can automate, build or do with AI...' plus concrete example tools and the 'which workflows fit their stack' case. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternative siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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