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

Annotations already indicate read-only/non-destructive; description adds meaningful output behaviors: median monthly spend, p25/p75 band, sample size, and source composite. It doesn't cover all edge-case behaviors but adds enough beyond 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with usage trigger, followed by return details, a useful practical example, and source attribution. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema/annotations.

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 3-param benchmark tool with no output schema, it communicates the key return fields and meaning; however, it omits how optional 'industry' affects results and default behavior, leaving a moderate gap.

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 describes only category (33% coverage); description compensates by explaining company-size filtering and the category example, but leaves 'industry' parameter semantics entirely unspecified and gives no valid-value guidance.

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 opens with specific verb 'benchmarking total spend in a software category against same-size peers', clearly identifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_industry_spend_benchmark by narrowing to software categories by company size.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when benchmarking total spend in a software category against same-size peers') and provides an interpretive example for negotiation mandate. It does not name alternatives/exclusions, so not a 5.

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