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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the tool 'Returns a per-market launch-readiness verdict, per-rule analysis, and concrete rewrites,' which clarifies the output. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs any writes, makes external requests, or requires special permissions. The audit nature implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. It lists jurisdictions and launch surfaces without unnecessary fluff, and every phrase contributes meaning. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers the key elements: purpose, jurisdictions, 28 rules, launch surfaces, and return values. It does not mention how to provide input (URL vs. text) or the need for at least one input, but the schema descriptions handle that. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit statement of returns, making the description complete for an overview.

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% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about launch surfaces (e.g., landing page, KOL brief) that partially aligns with the asset_type parameter, but it does not materially enhance understanding of the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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: 'Run the full TGE / token-launch marketing readiness audit (28 rules)' and enumerates the jurisdictions and launch surfaces. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single jurisdictions or specific check types, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for a comprehensive multi-jurisdiction TGE marketing audit across specified launch surfaces. It implies the tool is the combined audit compared to single-jurisdiction siblings, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, stopping short of a full guideline.

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