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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that the full detail is optional and not a prerequisite, but it does not go deeper into response behavior than the annotations and output schema already allow.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides actionable param and workflow guidance. 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?

For a read-only tool with two enum parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers what is needed. It explains the optional parameter, signals the tool's scope, and gives a clear pointer for when to use a sibling tool instead.

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 schema documents both parameters with default values and descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying what 'detail=full' returns ('coverage matrix, input definitions and methodology') and explicitly says it is optional and not a prerequisite, which helps the agent decide whether to set it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a short scope and human-review service summary.' It also explains what the 'detail=full' option adds, so an agent understands the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools by name, but the resource is distinct enough to avoid obvious confusion.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: 'Set detail=full... optional, not a prerequisite.' It also explicitly routes product-case work to the sibling tool by saying 'Start product cases at Stage 1 with market_access_check,' which tells the agent when not to use this tool.

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