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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output composition (wedge, complaints, accelerators, verification plan), which is useful, but it is silent on side effects, data sources, permissions, or whether the generation is deterministic.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable detail about what the brief includes. Every word 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?

For a 3-parameter generator with no output schema, the description helpfully lists output contents, partially compensating for the missing output schema. However, it omits usage context, prerequisites, and any detail on how app_id and storefront affect the result, leaving the description adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'codex, claude, or cursor' echoes the target enum, and the schema already explains each parameter clearly. No additional semantic meaning is added.

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 a specific deliverable ('ready-to-build product specification'), the audience ('specific AI coding agent'), and enumerates contents. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_opportunity_brief by emphasizing agent-formatted, build-ready output, though it does not explicitly name sibling contrasts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_opportunity_brief, search_open_source_accelerators, or find_unmet_demand. The word 'ready-to-build' implies the tool belongs late in the opportunity pipeline, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative calls are given.

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