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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the two facts an agent most needs: the run is asynchronous with a run_id, and it costs 150 credits. It does not warn whether re-running the same target re-burns credits, which would be the natural complement to a declared non-idempotent, credit-consuming run.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded: the action and output themes come first, then input constraints, then the async lifecycle and cost. Each clause carries information, though the parenthetical '(CI_MARKET, 7 agents)' and the stacked config list read as compressed shorthand rather than clean prose.

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 correctly supplies the return contract (immediate run_id + polling via check_report_status) and the credit cost, which is what an agent needs to sequence the call. Remaining gaps — the undocumented company_domain field and the unspecified contents of the completed report — are minor for a kickoff tool whose results arrive through a sibling.

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 only 50% (the config object itself is undocumented), and the description compensates by listing the meaningful config options — market, vertical, geography, time_window — and by explaining the altitude required for target with a worked example and a '[modifier] + [layer] + [domain]' pattern. It omits the company_domain config field entirely, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 names a specific action and resource (run the Market Intelligence / CI_MARKET pipeline, 7 agents) and enumerates what it produces: topology, capital flows, emerging entrants, adjacent attackers. That is far more informative than a restatement of the title, but it never distinguishes this from sibling intelligence tools such as competitive_intelligence or company_intelligence, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 an explicit input constraint ('one coherent market category', 'not a list of topics') and a concrete workflow: returns a run_id immediately, then poll check_report_status until completed. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over the other intelligence tools or when a deeper tool like due_diligence is warranted, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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