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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: deterministic, retrieval-grounded, reproducible, and explicitly not market proof or investment advice. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the nature of the output and its limitations.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the core function and then providing verdict types, reproducibility, disclaimers, and usage. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the verdict list is detailed.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing possible verdict outcomes and clarifying what the tool does and does not do. Combined with readOnlyHint and parameter schema, it provides a sufficiently complete picture for a decision-support tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but none are needed since the schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 states the tool produces a deterministic decision-rehearsal verdict on a business idea and enumerates the possible verdict categories. It explicitly distinguishes from 'a public claim', aligning with sibling claim-focused tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use to pressure-test an idea before committing', providing a clear context for use. It also notes 'not a public claim', implicitly excluding claim-related uses and separating from siblings. It lacks explicit alternative tool names but the context is clear.

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