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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the operation is a prerequisite step in a multi-tool workflow, and the interview is to be conducted one question at a time. It does not, however, say whether the rubric is static or can change over time.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents before the workflow instruction. The enumeration of rubric components is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will get. Minor density cost, no 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 carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does so thoroughly (patterns, anchors, penalties, verdict zones, interview guidance) while also stating the workflow position. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly omits any parameter discussion and describes the returned content instead, which is the right use of the space.

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 ('Returns the Startup Idea Validator rubric') and then enumerates the exact contents: 10 weighted patterns, scoring anchors, red flags with penalties, verdict zones, founder interview guidance. An agent can distinguish this fetch-the-rubric tool from score_startup_idea without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing is given: 'Call this first, then interview the founder one question at a time and call score_startup_idea.' This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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