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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only and free' adds no new behavioral insight. The description adds that scores are 'derived from how you explore and validate ideas', which provides some behavioral context but not beyond what annotations already imply.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the output, the second explains usage, and the third adds convenience info. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (0 parameters, output schema exists). The description covers what it returns, why to use it, and that it's read-only and free. With an output schema present, no further explanation of return values is needed. The description is complete for its context.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description redundantly states 'takes no parameters' but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns a 'Founder DNA profile' with specific scores (risk appetite, innovation, market fit, etc.). The verb 'Return' plus the resource 'Founder DNA profile' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_achievements' or 'get_idea_summary' which have different outputs.

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 suggests using it to 'personalise recommendations or understand your founder style', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use it, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and unique purpose.

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