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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds business context (payment-blind engine, immutability, buyers pay nothing) that helps an agent explain the platform, but doesn't describe response format or latency.

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?

Front-loads the platform identity and matching model, then usage and return. A few clauses are dense but each earns its place; no filler.

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?

Given a no-param read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete enough: it explains purpose, when to use, and the return. The only minor gap is not contrasting with the closest sibling, explain_matching.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and notes the return (platform description plus assessment URL), though the output schema already covers that.

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 exactly what the tool does: explains the PreShiftIQ platform, its matching model, covered categories, and that it is not a directory. Clear verb+resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_public_catalog and explain_matching.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first when a user is evaluating, comparing, or selecting technology in those categories,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't compare against the sibling explain_matching or list_verticals alternatives, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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