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 meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the data source (Stratalize composite diligence), the cost ($0.10 USDC per call), and the type of analysis (example with EBITDA recovery). This goes beyond the minimum required by the annotations.

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 well-structured, front-loading the usage context and core returns before the example and source/cost. The example is somewhat detailed but serves a clear illustrative purpose. There is little waste, though the example could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear high-level summary of returns and a concrete example. However, it lacks detail on the exact shape of the output (e.g., structured data vs. textual narrative) and does not explicitly distinguish itself from several closely related sibling tools like get_vendor_market_rate or get_vendor_benchmark. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for agent selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the entire burden of explaining the parameter. It implies vendor_name should be a vendor company name ('for any vendor', example 'Salesforce'), but does not explicitly label or describe the parameter. The example provides enough to infer the intended value, but the description could be more direct about the expected format.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns market rate data, brand index snapshot, and competitive displacement signals for vendor diligence. The PE/VC portfolio context and the example with Salesforce make the resource and action specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_vendor_market_rate or get_vendor_benchmark, which could overlap.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'when conducting vendor diligence for a PE or VC portfolio company before a value creation initiative.' The example illustrates a practical use case, showing how to interpret output for renegotiation opportunities. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool recommendations, so it stops short of a 5.

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