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. It states the output size (10-20 questions), the format (each with 'why it matters' and 'watch for'), and the effect of parameters (vendor-specific gotchas, category templates, layered diligence). It does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom, but as a content-returning tool this is a minor gap given the detail provided.

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 three sentences: purpose, parameter usage, and use cases, plus author credibility. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. The author line is slightly tangential but adds trust without bloating the text.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return-value format, parameter behavior, and use cases. It could optionally mention the exact question format or pagination, but for this simple tool the information is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already covers the parameters 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: vendor-specific examples (Apollo credit-pool, Salesforce SKU-breakdown), the category slug list, and the 'layered diligence' interaction when both are supplied. This enriches the agent's understanding of how to combine parameters.

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 and resource: 'Return 10-20 questions a B2B GTM buyer should ask a vendor before signing.' It also specifies the output structure ('why it matters' and 'watch for'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_vendor_fact_sheet or get_category_landscape.

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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Use when the user is evaluating a vendor, prepping for a sales call, or building a procurement checklist.' It also explains parameter choices (vendor, category, or both), but stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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