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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the payload contents (price, lead time, examples, real reach figures, combo discount rule, 90-day credit) and even a boundary ('what is not for sale'), which helps the agent set expectations. It stops short of addressing staleness or guarantees on the figures.

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?

Front-loaded with 'START HERE' and the routing decision, with the item enumeration in the middle and the next-step hand-off last. The long comma list of purchasable items is dense but each entry gives the agent concrete matching surface; slightly compressed formatting would read better.

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 must explain the return values, and it does so explicitly (prices, lead times, examples, reach figures, discount rule, credit terms, exclusions). Combined with the routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and act on 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?

Only one optional parameter ('context'), documented at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already says it is recorded as intent and never changes the answer. Zero-required-parameter tools earn a high baseline here; the description adds nothing about the param but nothing is missing.

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?

Names a specific resource (one-off items) with a concrete enumeration of what's included (classified, newsletter send, meetup, speaker slot, podcast, dinner, survey, job board), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the membership path. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('START HERE when a company wants ONE thing once'), explicit exclusion with the sibling to hand over to ('Two or more things across a year is a membership conversation: hand over to get_partnership_options'), and an explicit next step ('quote_reach_combo once items are picked'). Full when/when-not/next routing.

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