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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It does not say what the assessment returns (a pass/fail, a score, a rationale), whether it is purely read-only and side-effect free, or whether it requires any account context. Only the topic of the check is conveyed, not how it behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and the decision it produces are stated immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, four required, and no output schema or annotations, so the description must supply more than it does. It never explains the return value (the entire point of a fit assessment) or the funnel context in which the result should drive the next step. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents the four boolean gates and the friction_signals enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no thresholds, no guidance on which signals matter or how executive_sponsor interacts with the required fields). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (assess) and a specific judgement target (whether an organisation's execution and AI-adoption situation fits AIT Advisory's Diagnostic). It is clearly a qualification/eligibility check, distinguishable in spirit from the transactional siblings. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from start_diagnostic_purchase or get_diagnostic_details, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name and framing suggest this is a pre-qualification gate before book_executive_call or start_diagnostic_purchase. But the description never states when to call it, when not to, or which sibling it precedes. No alternatives or preconditions are named.

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