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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not: the specific data source (upGrowth Growth Moves research), the coverage window (January–September 2026), and the per-record payload (leader, date, source link). It does not say what happens when no matches are found or whether the Sep 2026 cutoff is a hard dataset limit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the filter dimensions, then the return contents. No filler and no restated annotations.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the fields each move contains. Minor gaps remain: behavior on zero results, whether limit=14 is the entire dataset cap, and whether filters are combinable are all left unstated.

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%, including defaults, enum values and per-parameter examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates the three filter dimensions and adds no interpretation beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., whether filters combine with AND semantics or how keyword matching works).

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: returns documented 2026 growth moves by Indian companies from upGrowth research, with the filter dimensions named. It is clearly a research/dataset lookup rather than a calculator, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from numeric siblings like growth_rate, growth_projection or ytd_growth.

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?

Usage is implied by the described filters (sector, company, keyword) and the date-bounded dataset, so an agent can infer when a lookup is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to an alternative tool for related growth metrics.

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