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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a map but does not clarify internal behavior such as how the map is generated, whether it is cached, or any data dependencies. Given annotations carry the main burden, a 3 is appropriate because the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond a simple read.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundant filler. It is slightly long and uses jargon ('TQP diagnostics') that may require prior knowledge, but it is still efficient and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given there is an output schema, the description does not need to enumerate return values. The description covers what the tool does and its output's role. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify what 'plain-English problem, search phrase, and AI-assistant prompt map' means in practical terms, but the output schema likely resolves that.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema contributes nothing. Per the scoring rule, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, so it fully satisfies parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('small business intent map'), and describes its purpose as routing buyer intent to specific page types. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_kit and get_resource, though the phrasing 'plain-English problem, search phrase, and AI-assistant prompt map' is somewhat abstract and could be clearer about what the map actually contains.

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 implies this tool is used when you need to map buyer intent to content pages, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives like get_recommendation_profile or find_best_resource. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving usage inference up to the agent.

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