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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: 'stores nothing and contacts nobody,' the below_bar flag behavior for small/young companies, the 'always present it as an estimate' caveat, and the instruction to ask rather than guess. These are behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by privacy constraints and edge-case behavior in a logical order. Six sentences is on the longer side but nearly all carry non-redundant information; slight tightening would be possible.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still usefully explains the below_bar band and the indicative-range nature of the result. Privacy rules, missing-data handling, and framing guidance are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by telling the agent what content may enter the parameters ('staff count, founding year, country and the list of systems with counts and date ranges') and, critically, what must never enter them (message text, customer names, file names, personal data) — a constraint the schema cannot express.

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 object ('Estimates what the company's operational data might fetch when licensed to AI labs'), plus what it returns ('an indicative range'). This is clearly distinct from the siblings assessment_checklist and request_offer, which the description's framing makes obvious without naming them.

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?

Gives clear operating context: send only summary numbers, ask the user for missing values rather than guessing, and expect a marked-down band for companies under 20 staff or 3 years. It does not explicitly route between this tool and request_offer, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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