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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which already communicates a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by explaining the cache-first behavior: returns stored plan when available, otherwise reports that generation is required. This explains the possible non-immediate result and the on-demand generation aspect, which annotations do not cover.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states the purpose and deliverables, second explains the cache-first behavior, third gives usage guidance and input. Every sentence adds necessary context, with no filler or 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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (cache-first and generation requirement), input source, and use case. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect, without needing to explain return values (already in output schema).

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%: opportunity_id is described as 'Opportunity id obtained from ftg_market_gap' and async is fully explained. The description repeats 'Input: an opportunity_id' but adds no extra semantic beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returning a business plan for a market-gap opportunity, listing specific components (CAPEX, OPEX, ROI, payback period, automation level). It explicitly references ftg_market_gap as the source for opportunity_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ftg_market_gap or ftg_business_ideas.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'When to use this tool: an agent has an opportunity_id (from ftg_market_gap) and needs the investable plan.' It explains cache-first behavior and the fallback to reporting generation is required. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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