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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: the tool is research-only and cannot spend money or take external actions. Still, it does not describe what happens to results, whether external agents are actually spawned, or any other side effects.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, this description is too thin. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what the research output looks like, or how to retrieve the results, despite the sibling neo_director_results suggesting such a follow-up exists.

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%, and the description does not explain goal, budget_eur, max_agents, or hours_per_week. The 'no spending' clause indirectly hints that budget_eur is not an authorization to spend, but this is too weak to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('coordinate') and resource ('external agents to research revenue opportunities'), and adds a clear scope boundary ('research-only'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent sibling tools such as neo_ask_agents or neo_collective, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Research-only; no spending or external actions' gives a clear usage context and an exclusion. However, it does not name alternative tools or explain when to choose this over siblings like neo_ask_agents or neo_collective, leaving part of the routing decision to inference.

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