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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by describing the output structure: 5-12 ranked targets, scoring dimensions, rationale, and an outreach playbook, which 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds usage context and inputs. The sentence about 'Delivered by Antoine' is minor fluff but does not significantly detract. It is longer than the two-sentence ideal but stays efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It provides the necessary context for agent selection: when to use, what inputs are required, and what kind of output to expect. The tool's complexity is moderately high, but the description covers the essential decision-making information.

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 50%. The description clarifies the two required parameters by calling out 'Inputs: the user's own company and the strategic axis to unlock through partnership,' and gives an example for strategicAxis. However, optional parameters like focus and constraints are not mentioned, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's gaps.

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 function: 'Identify and rank strategic partnership opportunities for a company.' It adds specificity by noting it returns 5-12 targets scored on dimensions like revenue lift and regulatory risk, which distinguishes it from generic advice tools.

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?

Explicitly provides a 'When to use this tool' clause: 'the user wants business-development or alliance ideas, or M&A target screening before deeper due diligence.' This gives clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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