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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the return format (score 0 to 1 with evidence strings), the underlying methodology (citation volume heuristics), and the per-call cost. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the call will produce and what it will 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: use case first, output format second, concrete example third, then source and pricing. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the example makes the abstract scoring concrete without bloating the text.

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 is complete: it explains when to use it, what it returns, what the score means, the evidence format, an example, the data source, and the cost. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without further lookup.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does convey that the 'category' parameter refers to a software category and gives an ERP example, which helps. However, it does not enumerate valid categories, naming conventions, or format requirements, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 function: assessing near-term displacement risk for a software category and returning a disruption risk score. The verb 'assessing' plus the specific resource ('software category') and the numeric score output make the purpose unmistakable, even among many similarly named siblings.

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 opens with explicit use cases: 'Use when assessing whether a software category faces near-term displacement risk, or timing a market entry or exit decision.' It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of the strongest possible guidance.

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