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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the data is read-only and free, never generates or revises strategy, strategy is dated judgment rather than measured evidence, and missing facts/strategy return null. This is rich, accurate context that helps the agent interpret the result correctly.

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?

Every sentence carries useful information: first sentence inventories the content, second sentence prescribes usage and data interpretation. No filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the agent can expect: content fields, source/versioning, null semantics, and the evidential status of strategy. Nothing necessary for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description instead clarifies the semantic quality of the returned data (null for missing, dated judgment for strategy), which is more relevant for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description names a specific resource ('structured business positioning, audience, ICP, pricing, features and competitors') and a specific action ('Read before planning or writing'). It clearly differentiates from sibling get_* tools by listing its unique content scope, including growth_strategy with version/source/date details.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use it ('Read before planning or writing') and a clear exclusion ('never generates or revises a strategy'). It also advises cross-checking strategy against current founder intent, but does not name alternative sibling tools or specify when NOT to use it beyond the generation/revision exclusion.

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