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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses caching behavior ('Returns cached report instantly if one exists, otherwise generates fresh analysis'), cost ('Spends 2 credits only when generating new content'), and prerequisite data needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences, each dense with information: purpose, prerequisites, caching behavior, cost, and ownership caveat. No redundant phrases or filler. The description is front-loaded with the core function and progressively adds operational details.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the two parameters are fully documented, the description adds all necessary operational context: what data is synthesized, when to run revalidation, cached vs. fresh behavior, credit cost, and ownership requirement. It is complete for its scope.

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% for both parameters (ideaId and language), so the schema already documents them. The description adds value by specifying that ideaId must be owned by the caller, which is a meaningful constraint not present in the schema. It doesn't elaborate on the language parameter, but the enum and default in the schema suffice.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an executive-level strategic review report for an idea,' and clarifies the output as a 'concise go/no-go assessment with actionable recommendations.' It synthesizes specific validation data types (market research, competition, SWOT, revenue model, VC score), distinguishing it from generic get_* and other generate_* sibling 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?

The description explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Requires prior validation data (run request_revalidation first if none exists).' It also provides an ownership constraint ('pass an ideaId you own') and warns that the tool is 'Not read-only,' giving the agent clear context for when to invoke it versus when to seek data elsewhere.

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