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

Annotations already declare readOnly and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; beyond that the description adds the data provenance (aitools.obzdn.co/stacks/, totals copied from each tool's own pricing page), which tells the agent where the numbers come from and how current they claim to be. No return shape is described, but there is no output schema to fill in.

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 sentence that front-loads the source and content, then handles parameters. Some nested-parenthesis clutter (the business-type examples) but nothing wasted.

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 read-only, two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers source, contents, and both invocation modes. Only a hint about what the returned list/stack looks like is arguably 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples (plumber-under-100, trades, local). The description only restates the id-vs-omit behavior and the audience filter, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete resource (starter stacks of AI tools for one kind of business) with examples (plumber, new salon, consultant) and what each entry contains. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_tool or search_tools, though the dual get-or-list behavior means the verb is not a single clean action.

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 says to supply an id for one stack or omit it to list them, optionally filtered by audience — that is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives such as search_tools or get_tool for a different kind of lookup.

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