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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation with open input. The description additionally discloses the credit cost ('Costs 1 credit'), which is important behavioral context not captured in annotations. It also outlines the return components (score, strengths/risks, similar ideas, build/claim advice), adding transparency about the tool's output without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that pack in the core purpose, output components, entry-point context, credit cost, and a usage hint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and output, and every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation 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?

The tool has a rich output schema (not shown but flagged as present), and the description explains the key output elements (score, strengths/risks, similar ideas, advice). It covers the critical use case, cost, and input expectations. Given the tool's complexity and the annotations provided, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what it does and when to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (sector, language, description). The description adds only a generic reminder to 'describe the idea in the description parameter,' which is redundant with the schema's own description for that field. It does not add deeper semantic meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score 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 a specific action ('get an instant feasibility score') on a specific resource ('your business idea'), and lists the concrete outputs (score, strengths/risks, similar ideas, advice). It also differentiates from sibling tools by framing itself as the 'main entry point for founders who already have an idea in mind,' distinguishing it from analyze_url, claim_idea, or search_ideas.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: 'This is the main entry point for founders who already have an idea in mind.' It also mentions the 1-credit cost as a practical consideration. However, it does not explicitly name any alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for URL analysis use analyze_url'), so it misses the when-not/alternatives element for a 5.

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