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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, including the 1-credit cost, the use of maxBudget as a cap on suggestion claim cost, and the inputs drawn from Founder DNA, existing ideas, and preferences. It doesn't contradict annotations and gives operational detail.

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 very concise: three short sentences that lead with the action, then usage context, then cost/budget guidance. Every sentence earns its place and important constraints are 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?

With the annotations, full schema descriptions, and output schema present, this description completes the picture by adding cost, personalization source, and affordability filtering behavior. The agent has enough to decide when to invoke and how to configured parameters.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, with clear descriptions for language, maxBudget, and preferences. The tool description recontextualizes maxBudget as a cap on claim cost, but adds little beyond what the input schema provides.

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 states a specific action: 'get personalised, ranked idea recommendations drawn from your Founder DNA, existing ideas and stated preferences', clearly explaining what it returns and its personalization inputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_ideas or get_pivot_suggestions by emphasizing ranking, claimable ideas, and affordability filtering.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use it when you want the platform to surface the best-fitting claimable ideas for you.' It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough within the sibling set.

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