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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only, open-world and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: it discloses that the name, email and company are transmitted to Ruzora, that pricing is flat monthly with no price list, and that the typical outcome is a 15-minute founder call. It omits the verified-email/buyer_token prerequisite, though the schema documents that parameter in detail.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the five questions and the payoff, with no filler. The phrasing is slightly tangled around 'the next step to it', but the information density is high and appropriate.

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 nine-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers roughly what the tool does, what it sends, and the typical next step. It does not say what the fit assessment itself returns or reference the verification prerequisite, which matters for a tool that submits PII.

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 nine inputs, including the enum values. The description only restates the underlying question topics (roles, runway, budget, timing) and adds no format, default or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: answer five questions (roles, runway, budget per engineer, timing) to get a fit assessment and a next step. That is clearly distinct from siblings like explain_ruzora_terms or request_vetted_shortlist. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it does not reach a 5.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'does a quote make sense / what does it cost' questions, reinforced by 'Explains the flat monthly pricing; no price list'. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative such as explain_ruzora_terms or request_project_scoping_call.

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