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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only and free.' It adds the cost signal 'free,' which is helpful for an agent. No contradictions. While it doesn't detail rate limits or response size, the output schema covers return structure, so the description adds reasonable extra context.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence immediately lists the report contents, the second gives the use case, and the third adds cost/access notes. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage context, and inputs sufficiently. For a two-parameter tool with annotations and output schema, this description is complete.

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%, with both parameters (sector and language) already described in the input schema. The description only mentions 'pass a sector name or category label' and gives examples that are duplicated from the schema. It does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Produce a complete sector or industry report' with a specific list of contents (total ideas, average VC scores, competitive density, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like get_competitive_density or get_market_trends by offering a comprehensive aggregated report, not a single metric.

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 recommends using the tool 'to size up a whole market before picking an angle,' giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the provided use case is sufficient guidance.

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