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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely important behavioral context that annotations cannot convey: 'This tool fetches no data; the calling model runs the procedure with its own web search and produces the result,' which tells the agent this returns instructions, not data. It stops short of describing how large the returned procedure is or how the result should be structured back.

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 key framing ('framework, not finished analysis') is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is exactly right. Three worked examples are helpful but slightly redundant, and a stray double period ('saturation signals..') is a minor polish issue.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the unusual behavioral contract instead. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though a note on how the resulting analysis should be handed back would make it fully self-contained.

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 100%, so the schema already documents category, city_metro and radius_note with examples. The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource — it returns the procedure, output schema and quality rubric for mapping a local competitive set for a category + metro — and explicitly frames what the tool is not ('Returns a research framework, not the finished analysis'). This distinguishes it from siblings like market_opportunity_scan and pricing_benchmark without needing their schemas.

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 clearly states the context of use — mapping true competitors vs. adjacent players with positioning and saturation signals — and the example invocations show the intended shape of requests. However, it never explicitly says when to pick this over a sibling such as market_opportunity_scan or local_visibility_audit, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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