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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world traits, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: only validated gaps are returned, the time window is the past week, and results are ranked by commercial intent. It does not detail pagination or exact sorting semantics, but the output schema exists to cover return shape.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is packed into a single subordinate clause. Every sentence contributes either what the tool does or when to use it.

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?

Given only two optional, fully described parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It gives the conceptual return value, the temporal scope, and explicit trigger conditions. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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%: limit and category are both described with types, constraints, and defaults. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the highest commercial-intent validated gaps from the past week', and adds 'across all categories' to make the scope explicit. The use-case phrase 'when the user asks what to build with no particular market in mind' clearly differentiates it from search_gaps and validate_idea.

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 states explicit trigger conditions: 'when the user asks what to build with no particular market in mind, or wants the strongest current signals.' It does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the conditions imply that a specific market/category would warrant a different tool or a category filter.

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