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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still contributes: it discloses a clarification_required response branch for ambiguous queries and warns that company coverage overlaps so task counts are not additive. It omits anything about result volume or continuation behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the conditions. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information (scoping, ambiguity behavior, non-additive counts); no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and the description covers the two non-obvious behaviors (clarification_required, overlapping coverage). Remaining gap is how query/industry values are expected to be formed, which matters for a 4-param open-world lookup.

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 50%: limit and offset are documented in-schema, while query and industry ship bare. The description compensates partially by explaining query is a free-text directory filter with ambiguity handling and industry is a scoping filter, but it gives no syntax for either (name vs slug, matching rules).

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 plus the returned fields: 'Lists AI solution task IDs, slugs, descriptions and company coverage'. It is clearly not one of the company/research siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_industries or search_research, which the 'industry' and 'query' params make adjacent.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to enumerate tasks, optionally scoped by industry, with a free-text query filter. It adds real guidance about ambiguous queries ('verification', 'verify') triggering clarification_required, but never says when to pick this over list_industries or search_research, nor any preconditions.

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