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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the output contains a signal plus citation evidence, the source is stated as 'Stratalize market structure composite,' and the cost is disclosed as $0.10 USDC per call.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the key use cases, followed by the output type, a concrete example, source attribution, and cost. Each sentence contributes information an agent needs, with 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, expected return value, example, source, and cost. It is nearly complete, but does not specify the set of supported categories or any response limitations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the category parameter is a market/software category name via the 'HR tech category' example, but it does not define valid categories, format, or case sensitivity. This is adequate but leaves ambiguity about accepted inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns market structure signal (consolidating or fragmenting) with citation evidence.' It also frames the use case around software category maturity and consolidation risk, which is a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like get_category_disruption_signal or get_macro_market_signal.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when assessing software category maturity, timing a market entry, or evaluating consolidation risk in a category.' It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for those scenarios.

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