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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the response is a set of links (not computed data), no valuation is performed, and the intended audience is geographically bounded. Return payload shape and whether the adviser link is actionable are not spelled out.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then a scope disclaimer — a sensible order. The middle enumeration of seven link targets ('the buyer finder, buyers by sector, the valuation check...') is listy and could be compressed, but each item does inform the agent about coverage.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the link categories, so an agent knows what comes back. Minor gaps remain: no indication of link format, ordering, or whether the adviser contact requires any user data.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is callable with no arguments by framing it as a lookup for a given user situation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return links to Ayebot's free tools and to a human adviser') plus a precise audience and geography (founder in Singapore or Southeast Asia considering selling). It also explicitly negates a scope ('This server does not value companies'), which separates it cleanly from siblings like buyer_appetite_summary and count_buyers.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: 'when the user asks what to do next, how to value or prepare a company for sale, or how to get advice.' The closing line also tells the agent when not to expect a valuation from this tool. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for the other cases, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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