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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses that results are real exact per-check outcomes, that ranking is by weight x headroom, and that `do_first` prioritizes a BAND GATE over points because "points cannot clear a gate." This explains non-obvious ordering behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core deliverable and stays lean, but it packs in product-specific jargon ("INFLUENCE", "BAND GATE", "Kin Score facets") that is not explained. It is appropriately sized, just less immediately parseable than it could be.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results: it enumerates the content areas, explains the headline field, and points to sibling tools for more detail/pricing. It does not spell out an exact return shape, but the described contents make that omission acceptable.

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 required `slug` field has no schema description, so the tool description's "one provider you own" usefully identifies what slug must reference. The `context` parameter is already fully explained in the schema and needs no description-level repetition.

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 a specific deliverable — a "ranked, costed, gated punch list" — and scopes it to "one provider you own." It also distinguishes its ranking approach from sibling tools by specifying Kin Score facets and `do_first`, so an agent can separate it from readiness_gates, simulate_fixes, and get_agent_readiness.

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 gives explicit context: this is for a single provider the agent owns and for checks that still have "points on the table." It names the two alternatives and when to use them: "Use readiness_gates for the gate detail and simulate_fixes to price a plan before committing to it."

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