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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds that inputs are validated server-side and the deliverable is audited, but does not disclose async behavior or polling expectations, which the schema mentions.

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 four sentences, but includes promotional fluff ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CSO)') and a reference case that, while informative, is not essential. It could be tighter and more focused on actionable guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description gives only a hint of outputs (fit score, valuation, integration risk). It omits important operational details like async/job_id handling, required field semantics, or response structure, making it incomplete for a complex tool with nested objects.

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% (only async is described). The description says 'send the documented case fields' but provides no details about acquirer, criteria, focus, or how to structure them. This 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 states it is an M&A deal screener that returns a structured, audited deliverable, and mentions screening targets with fit score, valuation, and integration risk. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like re_deal_screener, though the verb 'screener' is implied rather than explicit.

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 a reference case (Salesforce M&A targets) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or explain how this differs from similar tools like ma_arbitrage_hunter or deal_coach.

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