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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so no mutation risk needs restating. The description adds a meaningful limitation ('Named checks only — facet rollups cannot name the checks underneath them') and a detailed cost model with a cap and plan inclusion, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not describe return formatting, but the read-only safety profile is already covered.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then adds the gap_analysis contrast, a limitation, and pricing – all useful. However, the rhetorical 'Turns fix your OpenAPI...' line and redundant 'See apis://prices' after 'Estimate first' add fluff, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 only loosely suggests the return is named failing checks ranked by cohort-mean impact; it does not state record fields or sorting beyond 'ranked'. It also never explains how to resolve a valid slug or where the cohort/market identifier comes from. Pricing and read-only safety are covered, but invocation-critical semantics are incomplete.

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?

Only the context parameter has schema description coverage (20%), and the description adds no explicit guidance for kind, slug, page, or limit. It hints at 'industry' and 'market', but never maps those hints to the required slug/kind semantics or to pagination. With low schema coverage and no descriptions in the text, this is a clear gap.

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 defines the tool as revealing the agent-readiness checks a cohort's members most commonly fail, ranked by potential impact on the cohort mean. It distinguishes itself from gap_analysis by naming it as the inverse, which pinpoints the resource and the analytic angle. This makes the purpose concrete even without an imperative verb.

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?

It explicitly contrasts this tool with gap_analysis: under-served markets go there, rubric failures go here. This gives an agent a clear decision rule for its closest sibling. It does not cover other sibling tools, but the key alternative is handled.

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