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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the email goes externally to the founder AND is copied to the WizeB team so a human can follow up, plus a consent requirement. It stops short of saying what happens on repeat calls or delivery failure.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the side-effect recipients are front-loaded before the precondition. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential facts for a write/send tool: what is sent, to whom, and the consent prerequisite. It omits error/retry behavior and whether the email can be re-sent, which are minor gaps for this operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including report_id, run_id, name, email, and company is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that name and email come from the founder, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (emails), a specific artifact (the scorecard created with score_startup_idea), and the recipients (the founder plus the WizeB team). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling email_index_report and email_index_report-style tools.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: ask the founder for name and email first, and only call once they have agreed. That is real when-to-use guidance including a consent gate. It does not, however, contrast itself with the other emailing sibling, so it falls short of a full 5.

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