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

Annotations already mark it read-only/non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the data source (Stratalize go-to-market composite) and per-call cost ($0.02 USDC), and shows the kind of output values via the example. No contradiction with 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 key use cases are front-loaded, followed by return content, one illustrative example, and source/cost line. It is compact but information-dense; the example is the only slightly expendable part.

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 read-only benchmark tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context: when to use, what is returned, an example output, source, and price. It doesn't explicitly explain optional parameters, but the schema covers those.

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 covers 67% of parameters; the description reinforces that results are organized 'by industry and GTM motion' but adds little about avg_contract_value_usd beyond the schema's own 'ACV for LTV:CAC calculation' note. The example ('Mid-market SaaS with field sales') loosely hints at ACV and sales-led motion but doesn't clearly map to the enum values.

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 exactly what the tool is for — evaluating sales/marketing efficiency, setting CAC targets, and benchmarking GTM performance — and what it returns (CAC payback ranges, LTV/CAC guardrails, channel efficiency benchmarks). This scope clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling *benchmark* tools.

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?

Opens with explicit 'Use when' triggers tied to workflow context (board review, target setting). It doesn't name when not to use it or alternative benchmark tools, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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