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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that results are 'summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base,' which gives some context about output nature. However, it does not disclose any rate-limit behavior or other operational details beyond what the schema's email parameter hints at.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It names the tool, its domain, and the output format efficiently.

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 simple query tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential function and result type. The email parameter's purpose is documented in the schema, which the agent can access. The description is adequate for an agent to understand how to invoke it, though it could mention the free-tier email behavior, but that is not essential for the core task.

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% – all three parameters (email, query, top_k) have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it focuses only on the overall purpose. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all parameters and the description does not need to compensate.

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's purpose: asking the Ergora Business strategy about competitive strategy, OKRs, planning, and positioning, and it returns summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base. This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the domain (business strategy) explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention other ergora_* tools or conditions for choosing this one over them. The sibling list is not referenced in the description, so an agent receives no routing context.

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