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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: multiples must be researched fresh and date-stamped, never hardcoded, and the seller-question list is built from gaps the research surfaces. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 a precise definition, followed by detailed component breakdown and then example invocations. It is somewhat long but every section contributes value, and the examples clarify abstract concepts. It earns its length without being bloated.

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 tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it provides a thorough account of purpose, inputs through examples, and internal methodology. It gives an agent everything necessary to decide when and how to invoke it, including the types of information to gather before calling.

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 input schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description reinforces the role of category (determines multiple range) and asking_price (used for sanity-checking), but these add little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool produces a pre-diligence framework for brokers or buyers, enumerating specific components (SDE framing, category multiple range, red-flag checklist, seller questions). Example invocations ground the purpose in concrete user needs, making it easy to distinguish from vague or tautological definitions. Though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the unique combination of elements makes the function unmistakable.

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?

Example invocations explicitly demonstrate when to use the tool: preparing for diligence on a new target, generating seller questions, checking red flags, and sanity-checking asking prices against multiples. This provides clear context, but there are no explicit 'when not to use' statements or direct comparisons to sibling tools like pricing_benchmark or market_opportunity_scan.

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