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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the check is deterministic (repeatable, no LLM guesswork) and stores no data (no side effects on the founder's data). It also names the return artifact ('next step'), though it says nothing about error cases or how the verdict is expressed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the behavioral caveat, then the call instruction. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is repeated.

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?

Covers purpose, sourcing of inputs, and the no-storage/deterministic property for a 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema. The remaining gap is the return shape – 'the right next step' is mentioned but never characterized, which an agent routing the founder onward would benefit from.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the same fields and the constraint options already enumerated in the schema; only the framing 'pass what the founder told you' adds a mild sourcing hint (don't invent values) beyond the structured data.

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 ('Check whether a founder's business is a fit for Optimus offerings') and adds the outcome the caller gets ('the right next step'). None of the siblings (list_skills, describe_optimus, request_intro) do fit scoring, so the tool is distinguishable without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the founder-conversation framing and 'Pass what the founder told you', but the description never states when to call this versus alternatives such as request_intro or describe_optimus, and lists no prerequisites. Adequate context, no exclusions.

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