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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavioral context beyond them: execution is synchronous, task support is forbidden, the returned JSON is internal application state, and output handling rules (do not display raw JSON, mention IDs only when useful). This is substantial additional transparency with no contradiction.

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 long, front-loaded with the name and alias, then behavioral characteristics, then output handling. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

While the description covers usage and output handling well, it fails to explain how to construct a request with 27 undocumented parameters. With no parameter semantics and no explanation of what 'vertical intelligence' tasks might require, the description is incomplete for actual tool invocation despite having an 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?

The input schema has 27 properties with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameter names, formats, or how to use them. For a tool with no required parameters, this leaves the agent without guidance on what to pass. The description adds no value in explaining parameters.

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 states 'get vertical intelligence' as a verb+resource and clarifies it is a deprecated alias for get_vertical_intelligence, which distinguishes it from the canonical sibling. However, it does not define what 'vertical intelligence' means, so the agent must rely on the name or prior knowledge.

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 explicitly says 'Deprecated alias', implying that the non-deprecated get_vertical_intelligence should be preferred. It also gives concrete interaction guidance: use assistantSummary first, never display raw JSON unless asked, and suggest the next best action. These are clear when-to-use and how-to-use instructions.

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