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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (autonomy score, monetization model, MRR projections), which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first states outcome, second gives usage guidance and input. Front-loaded with key information, zero wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are documented. Description covers purpose, usage, and input. However, it does not mention the async parameter behavior, which is only in the schema. Still sufficient for core use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67% (async and category described). The description simply repeats 'optional category and limit' without adding details beyond the schema. Limit parameter lacks description in both schema and description, so no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('vetted, automation-scored business ideas') with clear output details (autonomy score, MRR projections). It distinguishes from siblings like ftg_business_plan and ftg_market_gap by focusing on idea discovery.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'an agent or founder wants ranked, buildable business ideas.' Provides context but does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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