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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that missing facts or strategy come back as null, that strategy carries version, source and date, and that strategy is dated judgement rather than measured evidence. The caveat that it never generates or revises a strategy, plus the 'free' cost note, are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 when-to-use clause is front-loaded and the field enumeration follows immediately, with no filler. The middle sentence is dense and semi-colon chained, which makes it slightly harder to scan, but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does: it lists the fact categories, the strategy sub-fields with provenance metadata, and the null behavior. Combined with the read-only guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes the empty input schema.

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 names the resource precisely and enumerates its contents: positioning, audience, ICP, pricing, features, competitors, plus a growth_strategy block with stage, bottleneck, bets and non-goals. An agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_competitors or get_voice_profile, which overlap on some of the same facts, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use this when the user's growth work needs their business facts" gives a clear triggering condition, and "never generates or revises a strategy" implicitly rules out the write path. It also instructs the agent to check the saved strategy against current founder intent. No named alternative is offered for cases where only a single fact (e.g. competitors) is needed.

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