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 only says the tool 'starts' an audit and returns a questionnaire; it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether it persists state, triggers other processes), required inputs, authentication, rate limits, or response format. For a starting tool, one would expect information about whether it mutates anything or is purely diagnostic. The description is silent on these behaviors.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Start an adaptive GTM architecture audit') and the outcome ('return the smallest discovery questionnaire'). It is concise with no filler. While it is brief, it is efficient in conveying the core purpose without redundancy.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the nature of the collected questionnaire, the workflow context (e.g., that 'complete_stack_audit' might follow), or any prerequisites. An agent would have insufficient information to invoke it correctly, especially without guidance on what 'adaptive' means or how the inputs influence the output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 4 parameters (goal, stage, motion, systems). It does not mention any of them or their roles in producing the questionnaire. The phrase 'adaptive GTM architecture audit' gives a high-level hint but no concrete semantics for the inputs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no required parameters and zero schema descriptions.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Start an adaptive GTM architecture audit' and 'return the smallest discovery questionnaire.' It distinguishes the tool as the entry point from siblings like 'complete_stack_audit' (which is the follow-up) and 'detect_stack_from_text' (which ingests text). However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

The description implies this is the first step in an audit workflow ('Start' and 'before KEEP, SWAP, or BUILD recommendations'), but it does not state when to use this versus alternatives like 'complete_stack_audit' or 'scan_stack'. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which another tool should be chosen. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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