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

Annotations cover read-only and non-destructive nature, but the description adds critical behavioral traits: 'never authorizes' and the requirement to submit only consented, data-minimized, redacted, or aggregated evidence, never secrets. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 organized with clear Use When/Do Not Use When labels, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence serves a purpose, providing necessary caution about evidence handling and exclusions.

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's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview of purpose, scope, and constraints. It could elaborate on how evidence should be structured or what the output represents, but the output schema likely covers return values, making this adequate.

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 only 25%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. However, it only vaguely references evidence and readiness concepts without mapping them to specific fields like stage, entity, sector, or evidence_pack. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an MVR public decision-governance preflight, specifying its role before various decisions (pre-MVP build, entry, BNPL, investment, partnership, scale). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the 'first call' preflight, with a clear focus on readiness checks.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections provide concrete scenarios, including exclusions like internal data lookup and definitions. It also clarifies that web research can supply evidence but cannot replace the tool, giving strong guidance on alternatives.

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