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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates a non-mutating, reference-style operation by saying the tool 'Returns' a list, and it specifies the exact result contents. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect status or failure/overage behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purposeful sentences: purpose, returned data, and usage differentiation. It front-loads the core function, provides essential output details, and names the alternatives with zero filler.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return value with per-tool cost, monthly/annual spend, readiness scores, and partner links. Edge details like aliases and budget overage handling are already in the schema, so no critical information for selecting and invoking the 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?

All three parameters already have explicit schema descriptions covering accepted industry values, budget overage behavior, and the team-size default. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the greenfield context and output contents, so the 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?

The description states a concrete action ('Returns a curated tool list') and a specific resource (a reference starter stack for an industry vertical), then enumerates the output fields. It also names the two sibling tools it is distinct from, so an agent can differentiate recommend_stack from scan_stack and recommend_partner without opening 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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool for greenfield 'what stack should I buy?' queries. It also gives clear exclusions by contrasting with scan_stack (audits an existing stack) and recommend_partner (single category), which directly routes the agent to the right alternative.

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