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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the exact output components, an illustrative example, the data source ('Stratalize PE Intelligence composite'), and a per-call cost.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the use case, return contents, a concrete quantified example, source attribution, and cost. The key information is front-loaded, and the example is compact rather than padded.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers most of what an agent needs to know: purpose, return value shape, use case, source, and cost. It is slightly short on parameter guidance and any caveats about sector/portfolio-size behavior, but the core context is sufficient.

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 carries the full burden for explaining sector and company_count, but it never names or defines these parameters. The example mentions 'Mid-market' and '10-company portfolio,' which hints at possible values, but does not clearly map to the parameter names or explain how they influence results.

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 names the specific verb/resource: benchmarking portco technology spend for PE operating partners and building software cost reduction cases across a portfolio. It also states what it returns (median software spend per company, category breakdown, savings opportunity percentage), which distinguishes it from many sibling benchmark tools focused on returns, commodity prices, or industry spend.

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?

It explicitly opens with 'Use when...' and gives two concrete scenarios where this tool is appropriate. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the specificity to PE portfolio technology spend is strong enough to route an agent correctly among the large sibling set.

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