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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions,' 'Returns a draft for human review,' and 'Payment requires explicit wallet authorization.' These clarify the tool's safety profile and transactional nature. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Three concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. The behavioral constraints, output nature, and payment requirement each earn their place without redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 the essential operational picture: input source, interaction constraints, output type ('draft for human review'), and cost/payment authorization. It omits details about result_expires, idempotency_key, and signature mechanics, but these are standard API fields and the tool has no output schema requiring elaboration.

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%, and the description does not name or explain the parameters such as brief, source_text, audience, or the payment/signature fields. The phrases 'supplied scope and business requirements' and 'buyer-supplied information' only vaguely allude to the inputs and do not compensate for the fully undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb and deliverable: 'Develop procurement and due-diligence questions tailored to the supplied scope and business requirements.' This clearly differentiates the tool from generic question-generation siblings such as discovery_questions or testimonial_questions by anchoring it to procurement and vendor evaluation.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: for procurement/due-diligence questions built from a supplied brief, and explicitly limits inputs to buyer-supplied information with no external research. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusion cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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