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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds valuable context: the data source ('Stratalize competitive displacement composite') and a concrete example showing the structure of results, which goes beyond annotation basics.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, usage context, an example, and the data source. The layout is front-loaded with the use case and every sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary jargon.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what is returned, gives an example output structure, and cites the source. It could optionally mention the number of alternatives returned, but this is not essential for the tool's use case.

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 100%: both vendor_name and reason are described with appropriate detail, including an enum for reason. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it merely echoes that vendor_name is the incumbent, which the schema already states.

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: returning alternative vendors with migration complexity scores, estimated savings, and switching narrative. The verb 'returns' plus the specific resource 'alternative vendors' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vendor_benchmark or get_competitive_displacement_signal.

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 evaluating a vendor switch or building a competitive RFP against an incumbent.' It does not provide when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear and actionable.

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