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

Despite annotations covering safety, the description adds substantial behavior: 60 credits charged only when the prospect and at least 2 rivals have data, prospects never take a brand slot, Meta ads limited to EU/UK, and Pro/Agency branding on the output. These are real operational facts not derivable from readOnly/openWorld hints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational detail, but the middle is a dense run-on list of comparison dimensions that could be tightened. Still, no sentence is pure 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return ('a client-ready page') and what it contains (map pack/search position, 90-day plan, draft ads). For a complex 8-param tool it covers purpose, cost, and output adequately.

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%, so all 8 parameters are already documented. The description only adds a little (Meta ads EU/UK scope, country default), which merely echoes the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('pitch report' for winning a new client) plus exact scope: prospect against up to 3 local rivals from Google's map pack. It enumerates the comparison dimensions and deliverables, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like teardown or serp_snapshot.

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 opening clause 'For winning a new client' gives clear intended context, and it explains that rivals and keyword can be passed or auto-picked. It doesn't explicitly say when a sibling (e.g. teardown) would be preferable, so no exclusions are stated.

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