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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that ideas are 'vetted' and 'automation-scored', and describes return fields. It does not contradict annotations and adds moderate value beyond them, but does not elaborate on data freshness or scope.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and input summary. No extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (stated in context) and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior for a simple read operation. It mentions key output fields (autonomy score, monetization model, MRR projections). However, it could include details about result ordering, pagination, or data freshness.

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 coverage is 67% (async and category have descriptions; limit does not). The description mentions 'optional category and limit' but provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain limit's range or category's possible values, nor how async affects behavior. The description adds minimal value over the parameter schemas.

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 returns vetted, automation-scored business ideas with specific attributes (autonomy score, monetization model, MRR projections). It also mentions the source (FTG idea bank). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ftg_business_plan or ftg_opportunity_scout, though the verb 'return' and resource 'business ideas' distinguish it implicitly.

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 includes an explicit 'When to use this tool' section: when an agent or founder wants ranked, buildable business ideas. It also mentions optional inputs (category and limit). However, it lacks explicit instructions on when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., if a full business plan is needed, use ftg_business_plan).

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