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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful 'rule zero' caveat that profit tax follows the owner rather than customers, and clarifies what holding-layer options genuinely deliver, which helps the agent set expectations and avoid overstating benefits.

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 dense but each clause contributes distinct information: market focus, archetypes, holding options, the tax caveat, and optional filtering. It is longer than minimal but remains scannable and front-loaded with the resource name and purpose.

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 zero required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description provides enough orientation for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret likely results. It lacks explicit sibling routing, but the level of detail about markets, archetypes, and holdings makes the tool's role clear within the broader context.

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 documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete allowed values for market (USA, EU, Switzerland, Asia, Middle East) and archetype (solo, scale-up, enterprise), and explains how the optional parameters narrow the playbook, going beyond the schema's brief property descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a structuring playbook for online/global businesses and enumerates its three content dimensions: customer-market setups, archetype stacks, and holding-layer options. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_structuring_roster; the detail provided makes the distinction inferable.

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 notes that you can optionally pass a market or archetype 'to focus', which gives a clear usage direction for varying the query. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_structuring_roster or plan_global_setup, nor does it list any exclusions.

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