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 behavioral context beyond annotations: the output segments (SMB, mid-market, enterprise), a concrete numeric example, the data source, and the per-call cost of $0.10 USDC. 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?

Every sentence earns its place: use case, returned segments, illustrative example, source, and pricing. The information is front-loaded and compact, with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers use case, output, example, source, and cost, which is strong for a simple one-parameter read-only tool. However, the vendor_name vs. software category mismatch leaves the single required input insufficiently defined, and there is no output schema or explicit return-format guidance beyond the example.

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 the required vendor_name parameter. The description talks about 'any software category' and gives 'CRM' as an example, but never explicitly reconciles this with the parameter name vendor_name. It is unclear whether an agent should pass a category like 'CRM' or a vendor/product name, creating meaningful ambiguity.

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?

States a specific action: benchmarking software category spend by company size before purchase or renewal, and returns SMB, mid-market, and enterprise median monthly spend. The company-size segmentation clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_category_spend_benchmark or get_industry_spend_benchmark.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use when benchmarking software category spend against same-size organizations before a purchase or renewal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the targeting is sufficiently specific.

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